Re: concurrent re-partitioning of declarative partitioned tables - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Michael Lewis
Subject Re: concurrent re-partitioning of declarative partitioned tables
Date
Msg-id CAHOFxGorjGyWXrMUhCMQaeVMwR+p0QDS+My31+HcyGNTnuJmvA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to concurrent re-partitioning of declarative partitioned tables  (Nick Cleaton <nick@cleaton.net>)
Responses Re: concurrent re-partitioning of declarative partitioned tables
List pgsql-general
You can not have overlapping partitions that are both attached. Why do you want to merge partitions that you are "done with" instead of just leaving them partitioned by day?

Why are you partitioning at all? Are you confident that you need partitions for performance & that the trade-offs are worth the cost, or are you needing to detach/drop old data quickly to adhere to a retention policy?

pg_partman extension may be worth looking into. I have only dabbled with it, so I can't offer much comment.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: error on connecting port 5432
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: concurrent re-partitioning of declarative partitioned tables