Re: Declarative partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ildar Musin
Subject Re: Declarative partitioning
Date
Msg-id 56D3715F.1060102@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Declarative partitioning  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Declarative partitioning
List pgsql-hackers

16/02/16 07:46, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> On 2016/02/16 11:41, Josh berkus wrote:
>> On 02/15/2016 04:28 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Also, you won't see any optimizer and executor changes. Queries will still
>>> use the same plans as existing inheritance-based partitioned tables,
>>> although as I mentioned, constraint exclusion won't yet kick in. That will
>>> be fixed very shortly.
>> We're not going to use CE for the new partitioning long-term, are we? This
>> is just the first version, right?
> Yes. My approach in previous versions of stuffing major planner changes in
> with the syntax patch was not quite proper in retrospect. So, I thought
> I'd propose any major planner (and executor) changes later.
>
> Thanks,
> Amit
>
Hello Amit,

Thank you for your work. I'm currently working on extension aimed at 
planner optimization for partitioned tables 
(https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_pathman). At this moment I have an 
implementation of binary search for range partitioned tables with basic 
partitioning keys (date, timestamp, integers etc). And I'd like to try 
to combine your syntax and infrastructure with my binary search 
implementation.
There likely will be changes in range syntax and partitions cache 
structure based on discussion. So looking forward for your next patch.

Ildar



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.