> > * 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.
I think it is unwise to wait on Gavin for a more complex implemention
--- we might end up with nothing for 8.4. As long as your syntax is
compatible with whatever Gavin proposed Gavin can add on to your patch
once it is applied.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-21 15:18:50|
|Subject: Re: Integer datetimes |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2008-03-21 14:48:25|
|Subject: Re: Commit Fest (was Re: Sort Refinement)|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-03-21 15:45:11|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: new large object API |
|Previous:||From: NikhilS||Date: 2008-03-21 14:45:43|
|Subject: Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1|