| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Date: | 2016-12-08 13:35:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20161208133504.GA23417@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit,
* Amit Langote (Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp) wrote:
> Hmm, I had mixed feeling about what to do about that as well. So now, we
> have the description of various new features buried into VI. Reference
> section of the documentation, which is simply meant as a command
> reference. I agree that the new partitioning warrants more expansion in
> the DDL partitioning chapter. Will see how that could be done.
Definitely.
> > * The fact that there's no implementation of row movement should be
> > documented as a limitation. We should also look at removing that
> > limitation.
>
> Yes, something to improve. By the way, since we currently mention INSERT
> tuple-routing directly in the description of the partitioned tables in the
> CREATE TABLE command reference, is that also the place to list this
> particular limitation? Or is UPDATE command reference rather the correct
> place?
Both.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-12-08 13:44:18 | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-12-08 13:34:24 | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |