Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1

Hi all,

I think the intent of the syntax / parser patch from Gavin and Jeff was to get consensus from PG on the syntax prior to proceeding with the next chunk of work.

The next chunk of work is now well underway - with support for "ALTER TABLE" and partitioning, along with fast inserts into the "parent" table. This involves changes to the catalog, so we'll also need to discuss this as part of a submission.

GP is in the middle of merging 8.3 into our product, so it will be a few weeks at least before we can push any more info to the list.

Was there consensus on the syntax? IIRC, there was a cessation of contrary comments on the matter. If so, the parser patch was provided earlier - we could posibly refresh it. The way it works in our dev branch now is that the partition syntax is turned off by default using a GUC, but is fully functional wrt creating rules, etc. This allows for experimentation.

----- Original Message -----
From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>; Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Sat Mar 22 01:19:01 2008
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:

> NikhilS wrote:
>> Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working
>> on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not
>> be needed in the first place?
>>
>> I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here,
>> before deciding the further course of actions.

> I think it is unwise to wait on Gavin for a more complex implemention
> --- we might end up with nothing for 8.4. As long as your syntax is
> compatible with whatever Gavin proposed Gavin can add on to your patch
> once it is applied.


It would be equally unwise to apply a stopgap patch if we're not certain
it will be upward compatible with what we want to do later.

I haven't been through the partitioning threads at all yet, but I think
what we probably want to have when we emerge from commit fest is some
consensus on what the road map is for partitioning.

+2

Regards,
Nikhils

--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com