Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> escribió:
> Even if there where plans, any changes would happen in the future
> and would not be help the now problem.
Yes and no. I can live without the partitioning, as I do not intend to
load data from more than one source. Other might. But until others
want to load data from different sources, a comment in the source
might do that partitioning of inheriting tables will be supported in
the future. But, that is an academic point now.
> That is contradicted by your statement below:
>
> Either performance is important or it is not.
Not quite. If the performance penalty by suboptimal choice in
partitioning does not matter in the current project because the
raster/bytea stuff does affect performance much more, it does not mean
that I cannot work on other project where it can matter. And even if
the latter is not the case, I can be just curious about it.
> If TILE is referring to the same thing you are dealing with in
> related question on psycopg list then you are talking about bytea
> storage. You should take a look at:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/storage-toast.html
Indeed, it does. Thanks for the hint.
