Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From NikhilS
Subject Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Date
Msg-id d3c4af540803210745j5ded6107r5871095a3aeb91af@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
List pgsql-patches
Hi Simon,

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:

> Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
> There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00375.php
>
> Please note that this patch tries to automate the activities that
> currently are carried out manually. It does nothing fancy beyond that
> for now. There were a lot of good suggestions, I have noted them down
> but for now I have tried to stick to the initial goal of automating
> existing steps for providing partitioning.
>
> Things that this patch does:

I think this patch is a reasonable first step and clearly written, but
not yet ready for application to Postgres in this commit fest.

I would say we need:

* Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
-hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
suggested syntax or this syntax.

* There are some additional syntax items I don't understand the need
for. So these need to be explained.

* I would be against using the term PARTITION BY since it is already a
phrase that is part of the SQL Standard. Perhaps PARTITIONED BY?

* We need regression tests for any new command syntax

* No docs - that might be the same thing as the first item

--

Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not be needed in the first place?

I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here, before deciding the further course of actions.

Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1