Re: Table Partitioning, Part 1

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, bizgres-general <bizgres-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Table Partitioning, Part 1
Date: 2005-05-10 18:32:15
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:16:17AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 18:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > 1. Embellish inheritance or separate infrastructure?
> >
> > > It seems prudent to avoid building on that foundation, even though we
> > > may decide to use some similar approaches.
> >
> > I disagree. The code is there, it could use work, and what you are
> > basically proposing is to duplicate both the existing work and much
> > of the improvement it needs.
> Minefields need clearing someday, I suppose.
> Multiple inheritance isn't something I'll be spending time on though.

I'm also not sure that inheritance would support all cases. For example,
in some situations PPUC3 leads to doing individual value partitioning,
where a partition is guaranteed to have only one value for part of the
PPK, meaning that there's no reason to store that part of the key in the
partition itself. Currently this is possible with partitions built out
of views but not out of inherited tables.
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Hallgren 2005-05-10 18:40:16 Re: Oracle Style packages on postgres
Previous Message David Fetter 2005-05-10 18:30:31 Re: Views, views, views: Summary of Arguments