Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Date: 2008-03-21 15:53:01
Message-ID: 23163.1206114781@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> NikhilS wrote:
>> 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.

It would be equally unwise to apply a stopgap patch if we're not certain
it will be upward compatible with what we want to do later.

I haven't been through the partitioning threads at all yet, but I think
what we probably want to have when we emerge from commit fest is some
consensus on what the road map is for partitioning.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Warren Turkal 2008-03-21 16:44:19 Re: timestamp datatype cleanup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-03-21 15:47:52 Re: Commit Fest (was Re: Sort Refinement)

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-03-21 16:53:44 Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-03-21 15:45:11 Re: Proposal: new large object API