| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Diogo Biazus <diogob(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: About inheritance |
| Date: | 2004-06-30 03:38:30 |
| Message-ID: | 40E235B6.2070603@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:58:36PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>The main reason why table inheritance is somewhat broken is that nobody
>>currently on -HACKERS seems to have any use for it. I know that I don't use
>>it, and would not even were it fixed. As a result, nobody is particularly
>>interested in fixing it.
>
> I wonder why it doesn't just get ripped out?
>
I hope not -- I think the underlying infrastructure could become the
basis of table partitioning. I have a project going on right now in
which we're porting ~700GB of data (forecast to become multi-TB over the
next year or so) from partitioned vendor-O tables to inherited Postgres
tables.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-06-30 03:51:17 | Re: About inheritance |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-30 03:01:28 | Re: About inheritance |