Re: [HACKERS] hash partitioning based on v10Beta2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] hash partitioning based on v10Beta2
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY=jwf6=1gS+t-aCAzSLSmOr-SGq0qc3ORb-O0J1CoBCQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] hash partitioning based on v10Beta2  ("yangjie@highgo.com" <yangjie@highgo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:44 PM, yangjie <yangjie@highgo.com> wrote:
> When the number of partitions and the data are more, adding new partitions,
> there will be some efficiency problems.
> I don't know how the solution you're talking about is how to implement a
> hash partition?

I am having difficulty understanding this.  There was discussion on
the other thread of how splitting partitions could be done reasonably
efficiently with the proposed design; of course, it's never going to
be super-cheap.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: yangjie
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] hash partitioning based on v10Beta2
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90