Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>
Cc: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Date: 2008-01-11 17:31:30
Message-ID: 1200072690.4266.1191.camel@ebony.site (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 17:31 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> > I've kept a list of requests for improvement that I can share with
> you;
> > I've always been loathe to publish a list of bad points.

The "list of bad points" doesn't refer to shortcomings in my proposal,
which I would never hide. It refers to a list of general requirements
for improvements to partitioning that I have accumulated over a number
of years and will publish as soon as I've retyped it. It's not a secret,
it all comes from things discussed on list at various points.

> I think it would help understand the proposal if you also present the
> shortcomings.
> When you presented the positive and negative points, the negative list
> did look intentionally short :-)

If I am aware of a downside in any proposal, I always identify it.
That's why the damn things are so long.

I design many things, but only post some of them. The proposals I do
post always have more positive than negative posts, otherwise I wouldn't
waste anybody's time.

I regularly get comments my proposal style. First, my proposals are too
long and they need a summary. Next that I don't explain myself enough
and need to stop leaving gaps that have people assume I've not thought
it through thoroughly. So I try to put the summary in for some people
and the detail for others.

For this proposal I identified the target use case at the very top of
the proposal, and IMHO it does meet the needs of that very well, as many
people have agreed. It doesn't do everything that everybody wants
because the list is very long indeed, probably man years of effort, all
things considered. We won't cross that gap in a single step.

I'm working on a revised version which will include all of the comments
and points that people have made, about 20 different topics in all from
my notes. In progress here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Segment_Exclusion

> This imho provokes negative replies, the average hackers that reply are
> no dummies eighter.

I post to -hackers because I know there's no dummies here.

If I've provoked negative replies, I'm happy to apologise to all.

Thanks for your candid thoughts,

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-11 18:43:43
Subject: Re: BUG #3852: Could not create complex aggregate
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-01-11 17:27:01
Subject: Re: scan.l: check_escape_warning()

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group