Re: Syntax for partitioning

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Syntax for partitioning
Date: 2009-11-18 04:17:38
Message-ID: 20091118131738.A497.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:

> Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >> PARTITION name VALUES LESS THAN { range_upper | MAXVALUE }
> >> | PARTITION name VALUES IN ( list_value [,...] | DEFAULT )
> >
> > i remember someone making a comment about actually using operators
> > instead of LESS THEN and family
>
> That doesn't sound like a bad idea..

I prefer to use widely-used syntax instead of postgres original one.
Oracle and MySQL already use "LESS THAN" and "IN" for partitioning.
I assume almost all user only use the default operators.
I don't want to break de facto standard for small utilization area.

I think truly what we want is a new partition "kind" in addition to
RANGE and LIST. If we want to split geometric data into paritions,
we need to treat the the partition key with gist-list operation.
I agree with a plan to add some additional parition kinds,
but want to keep RANGE and LIST partitions in the current syntax.

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2009-11-18 04:21:35 Re: Timezones (in 8.5?)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-11-18 04:13:17 Re: operator exclusion constraints