On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I support building incrementally, but I don't see why we want to
>> change the catalog structure and then change it again. That seems
>> like it makes the project more work, not less.
>
> I agree with what you say. I thought you were saying that the
> implementation had to provide multi-partitioning from the get-go, not
> just the design.
Well, I *hope* that's going to fall out naturally. If it doesn't, I
can live with that. But I hope it will.
>> To me, it seems like there is a pretty obvious approach here: each
>> table can be either a plain table, or a partition root (which can look
>> just like an empty inheritance parent). Then multi-level partitioning
>> falls right out of that design without needing to do anything extra.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
Cool.
>> I think it is also worth getting the syntax right from the beginning.
>
> Yes, that's critical. We could implement the whole thing in gram.y and
> then have the unsupported cases throw errors; then it's easy to see that
> there are no grammar conflicts to deal with later.
That's worth considering, too.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
