On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> It's going to be complicated and probably buggy, and I think it is heading
>>> in the wrong direction altogether. If you want to partition in some
>>> arbitrary complicated fashion that the system can't reason about very
>>> effectively, we *already have that*. IMO the entire point of building
>>> a new partitioning infrastructure is to build something simple, reliable,
>>> and a whole lot faster than what you can get from inheritance
>>> relationships. And "faster" is going to come mainly from making the
>>> partitioning rules as simple as possible, not as complex as possible.
>
>> Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
>> all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
>> that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so
>> restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use cases.
>
> Well, that's debatable IMO (especially your claim that variable-size
> partitions would be needed by a majority of users). But in any case,
> partitioning behavior that is emergent from a bunch of independent pieces
> of information scattered among N tables seems absolutely untenable from
> where I sit. Whatever we support, the behavior needs to be described by
> *one* chunk of information --- a sorted list of bin bounding values,
> perhaps.
That's exactly the representation I had in mind.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
