On Thursday 29 October 2009 18:33:22 Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
> <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > So +1 on solidifying the syntax first and then sorting out the other
> > minute, intricate details later..
> I like that idea as well but I have a concern. What will we do with
> pg_dump. If the PARTITION commands are just syntactic sugar for
> creating constraints and inherited tables then pg_dump will have to
> generate the more generic commands for those objects. When we
> eventually have real partitioning then restoring such a dump will not
> create real partitions, just inherited tables. Perhaps we need some
> kind of option to reverse-engineer partitioning commands from the
> inheritance structure, but I fear having pg_dump reverse engineer
> inherited tables to produce partitioning commands will be too hard and
> error-prone. Hopefully that's too pessimistic though, if they were
> produced by PARTITION commands they should be pretty regular.
One could have a system catalog containing the partitioning information and
generate the constraints et al. from that and mark them in pg_depend...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2009-10-29 18:17:01|
|Subject: Re: Proposal - temporal contrib module|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2009-10-29 17:33:22|
|Subject: Re: Syntax for partitioning|