Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1

From: "Nikhil Sontakke" <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, "Emmanuel Cecchet" <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Date: 2008-11-27 09:06:16
Message-ID: a301bfd90811270106k39d60318s7fc871a477a2b58d@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Hi,

>  i review it on nov 6, and there were open questions by me and by
> > Emmanuel none of those has been answered:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg00362.php
>
> Hmm, there's only one actual question in that email, which is a
> request for ideas about PL/pgsql vs. C.  I suspect you didn't get any
> responses because the rest of the email seems to indicate that the
> patch is not very mature at this point: for example, being able to
> handle updates that move rows between partitions would seem to me to
> be an essential feature for a project of this type, even though there
> are many practical scenarios were it's unimportant.  Likewise, being
> able to repartition sounds important.
>
> With respect to the specific question about PL/pgsql vs C, I suspect
> it's very unlikely that any patch of this type that relies on PL/pgsql
> being loaded would be accepted into core.  However, it's possible that
> a useful contrib module or pgfoundry project could be spawned on that
> basis, and that might be a good place to start.
>
> I think having a useful toolkit, or a core language feature, that
> supports table partitioning would be awesome and would find very broad
> application...  but it sounds like there is quite a bit of work left
> to be done to get there.
>

This patch does introduce some basic syntax to help create partitions.

The status has always being WIP, because what has not happened is that we
have not had consensus on whether this is a logical first baby step ahead
with partitioning. I haven't seen core members commenting on whether trying
to aggregate the current set of manual operations together via this approach
is worth spending further efforts, to get it into commitable shape.

To summarize, the community should decide if this is indeed the first step
ahead.

Regards,
Nikhils
-- 
http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-11-27 09:37:48
Subject: Re: Thread safety
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2008-11-27 08:26:32
Subject: Re: Enable pl/python to return records based on multipleOUT params

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-11-27 12:04:03
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version1
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2008-11-27 04:09:46
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group