Re: Declarative partitioning

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I support building incrementally, but I don't see why we want to
>>> change the catalog structure and then change it again. That seems
>>> like it makes the project more work, not less.
>>
>> I agree with what you say. I thought you were saying that the
>> implementation had to provide multi-partitioning from the get-go, not
>> just the design.
>
> Well, I *hope* that's going to fall out naturally. If it doesn't, I
> can live with that. But I hope it will.
>
>>> To me, it seems like there is a pretty obvious approach here: each
>>> table can be either a plain table, or a partition root (which can look
>>> just like an empty inheritance parent). Then multi-level partitioning
>>> falls right out of that design without needing to do anything extra.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>
> Cool.
>
>>> I think it is also worth getting the syntax right from the beginning.
>>
>> Yes, that's critical. We could implement the whole thing in gram.y and
>> then have the unsupported cases throw errors; then it's easy to see that
>> there are no grammar conflicts to deal with later.
>
> That's worth considering, too.

It seems that the consensus is to rework a bit more this patch.
Returned with feedback then?
--
Michael