Re: On partitioning

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: On partitioning
Date: 2014-10-13 19:27:55
Message-ID: 20141013192755.GC21267@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:56:07AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Prompted by a comment in the UPDATE/LIMIT thread, I saw Marko Tiikkaja
> reference Tom's post
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1598.1399826841@sss.pgh.pa.us
> which mentions the possibility of a different partitioning
> implementation than what we have so far. As it turns out, I've been
> thinking about partitioning recently, so I thought I would share what
> I'm thinking so that others can poke holes. My intention is to try to
> implement this as soon as possible.

I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted
to chime in to say I think our current partitioning implementation is
too heavy administratively, error-prone, and performance-heavy.

I support a redesign of this feature. I think the current mixture of
inheritance, triggers/rules, and check constraints can be properly
characterized as a Frankenstein solution, where we paste together parts
until we get something that works --- our partitioning badly needs a
redesign.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-10-13 19:30:16 Re: postgres_fdw behaves oddly
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-10-13 19:16:29 Re: Switch pg_basebackup to use -X stream instead of -X fetch by default?