On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> For what it's worth I disagree with Tom. I think this is a situation
> where we need *both* types of solution. Ideally we will be able to use
> a plain Append node for cases where we know the relative ordering of
> the data in different partitions, but there will always be cases where
> the structured partition data doesn't actually match up with the
> ordering requested and we'll need to fall back to a merge-append node.
I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is more general and extremely valuable in its own right.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-09-01 23:26:52|
|Subject: Re: "serializable" in comments and names|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-09-01 23:16:34|
|Subject: Re: Fix for pg_upgrade's forcing pg_controldata into English |