Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Markus Schiltknecht
Subject Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Date
Msg-id 477E2B57.9030708@bluegap.ch
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

Simon Riggs wrote:
> The smaller the partition size the greater the overhead of managing it.
> Also I've been looking at read-only tables and compression, as you may
> know. My idea was that in the future we could mark segments as either
> - read-only 
> - compressed
> - able to be shipped off to hierarchical storage
> 
> Those ideas work best if the partitioning is based around the physical
> file sizes we use for segments.

As much as I'd like this simplification.. But I'm still thinking of 
these segments as an implementation detail of Postgres, and not 
something the user should have to deal with.

Allowing the DBA to move segments to a different table space and giving 
him the possibility to check which tuples are in which segment seems 
awkward from a users perspective, IMO.

Regards

Markus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Markus Schiltknecht
Date:
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Next
From: Glyn Astill
Date:
Subject: Problem with PgTcl auditing function on trigger