Re: [HACKERS] Multi column range partition table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Multi column range partition table
Date
Msg-id da16b23d-aac2-6040-e4ab-26fe1383aea8@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Multi column range partition table  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Multi column range partition table
List pgsql-hackers
On 07/06/2017 01:24 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 6 July 2017 at 21:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
>>> However, this is also an incompatible syntax change, and any attempt
>>> to support both the old and new syntaxes is likely to be messy, so we
>>> really need to get consensus on whether this is the right thing to do,
>>> and whether it *can* be done now for PG10.
>>
>> FWIW, I'd much rather see us get it right the first time than release
>> PG10 with a syntax that we'll regret later.  I do not think that beta2,
>> or even beta3, is too late for such a change.
>>
>> I'm not taking a position on whether this proposal is actually better
>> than what we have.  But if there's a consensus that it is, we should
>> go ahead and do it, not worry that it's too late.
>>
>
> OK, thanks. That's good to know.

I agree we should get this right the first time and I also agree with
Dean's proposal, so I guess I'm a +2

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch: distinguish selectivity of < from <= and > from >=
Next
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] New partitioning - some feedback