Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Dmitry Ivanov <d(dot)ivanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
> wrote:
> > We (PostgresPro) have been working on pg_pathman for quite a while, and
> > since it's obviously going to become the thing of the past, it would be a
> > wasted effort if we didn't try to participate.
> >
> > For starters, I'd love to work on both plan-time & run-time partition
> > pruning. I created a custom node for run-time partition elimination, so I
> > think I'm capable of developing something similar.

That would be fantastic. I and my colleagues at EnterpriseDB can
> surely help review;

Great! And it is very cool that we have basic infrastructure already
committed. Thanks a lot to you and everybody involved.

> of course, maybe you and some of your colleagues
> would like to help review our patches, too.

We understand our reviewing performance is not sufficient. Will try to do
better during next commitfest.

> Do you think this is
> likely to be something where you can get something done quickly, with
> the hope of getting it into v10?

Yes, because we have set of features already implemented in pg_pathman. In
particular we have following features from your list and some more.

- more efficient plan-time partition pruning (constraint exclusion is too
slow)
- run-time partition pruning
- insert (and eventually update) tuple routing for foreign partitions
- hash partitioning
- not scanning the parent

Time is growing short, but it would
> be great to polish this a little more before we ship it.
>

Yes. Getting at least some of this features committed to v10 would be great
and improve partitioning usability a lot.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company