| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Diogo Biazus <diogob(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: About inheritance |
| Date: | 2004-06-30 03:53:28 |
| Message-ID: | 200406292053.28146.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Guys,
> > I wonder why it doesn't just get ripped out?
Mostly because some people use it and in its current form it's not at all hard
to maintain from version to version.
> I hope not -- I think the underlying infrastructure could become the
> basis of table partitioning. I have a project going on right now in
> which we're porting ~700GB of data (forecast to become multi-TB over the
> next year or so) from partitioned vendor-O tables to inherited Postgres
> tables.
Hmmmm .... I don't think that there's much in inheritance that would work for
paritioned tables, but you know the code better than me, Joe.
Any chance your boss would fund a table partitioning patch?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2004-06-30 04:07:54 | Re: About inheritance |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-06-30 03:51:17 | Re: About inheritance |