From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
Date: | 2009-10-29 17:33:22 |
Message-ID: | 407d949e0910291033p6154b3efu9aeff56a59e6fd84@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2009-10-29 17:57:49 | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-10-29 17:18:17 | Re: about GiST indexes |