Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 4077.1241663220@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (henk de wit)
Responses: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Craig Ringer)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (henk de wit, )
 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
  Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Simon Riggs, )
   Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Simon Riggs, )
     Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Alvaro Herrera, )
     Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
      Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (, )
       Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
        Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (, )
         Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )
         Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Robert Haas, )
          Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Craig Ringer, )
       Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )
 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )
 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Craig Ringer, )
   Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Simon Riggs, )
    Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?  (Scott Carey, )

Alvaro Herrera <> writes:
> I think there should be a way to refer to individual partitions as
> objects.

Yeah, the individual partitions should be nameable tables, otherwise we
will be reinventing a *whole* lot of management stuff to little gain.
I don't actually think there is anything wrong with using table
inheritance as the basic infrastructure --- I just want more smarts
about one particular use pattern of inheritance.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Dimitri
Date:
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..
From: Dimitri
Date:
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..