Re: Syntax for partitioning

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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