Re: Auto Partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Auto Partitioning
Date
Msg-id 461673DF.6050605@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Auto Partitioning  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Auto Partitioning  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> But if we could find a way to represent that it would make a lot of common use
> cases much more convenient to use.
> 
>>> (But that sounds rather like pie in the sky, actually.  Which other
>>> databases can do that, and how do they do it?)
>> Oracle does it, by building a big index. Few people use it.
> 
> The people that use it are the people stuck by dogmatic rules about "every
> table must have a primary key" or "every logical constraint must be protected
> by a database constraint". Ie, database shops run by the CYA principle.

Or ones that actually believe that every table where possible should 
have a primary key.

There are very, very few instances in good design where a table does not 
have a primary key.

It has nothing to do with CYA.

Joshua D. Drake



-- 
      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stuart Bishop
Date:
Subject: Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?