From: | "Amit Langote" <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "'Andres Freund'" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "'Pg Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: On partitioning |
Date: | 2014-10-28 05:34:22 |
Message-ID: | 01b001cff270$d470b990$7d522cb0$@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
> From: Andres Freund [mailto:andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
> On 2014-10-27 06:29:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Amit Langote wrote:
> > > FWIW, I think Robert's criticism regarding not basing this on
inheritance
> > > scheme was not responded to.
> >
> > It was responded to by ignoring it. I didn't see anybody else
> > supporting the idea that inheritance is in any way a sane thing to base
> > partitioning on. Sure, we have accumulated lots of kludges over the
> > years to cope with the fact that, really, it doesn't work very well. So
> > what. We can keep them, I don't care.
>
> As far as I understdood Robert's criticism it was more about the
> internals, than about the userland representation. To me it's absolutely
> clear that 'real partitioning' userland shouldn't be based on the
> current hacks to allow it.
For my understanding:
By partitioning 'userland' representation, do you mean an implementation
choice where a partition is literally an inheritance child of the partitioned
table as registered in pg_inherits? Or something else?
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adam Brightwell | 2014-10-28 06:40:33 | Re: alter user/role CURRENT_USER |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-10-28 04:46:26 | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |