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