|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> > * Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
> > so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
> > -hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
> > suggested syntax or this syntax.
> > * There are some additional syntax items I don't understand the need
> > for. So these need to be explained.
> > * I would be against using the term PARTITION BY since it is already a
> > phrase that is part of the SQL Standard. Perhaps PARTITIONED BY?
> > * We need regression tests for any new command syntax
> > * No docs - that might be the same thing as the first item
> 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.
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2008-03-21 15:18:50||Re: Integer datetimes|
|Previous Message||Andrew Dunstan||2008-03-21 14:48:25||Re: Commit Fest (was Re: Sort Refinement)|
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2008-03-21 15:45:11||Re: Proposal: new large object API|
|Previous Message||NikhilS||2008-03-21 14:45:43||Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1|