| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi column range partition table |
| Date: | 2017-07-06 20:04:46 |
| Message-ID: | 27802.1499371486@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> However, this is also an incompatible syntax change, and any attempt
> to support both the old and new syntaxes is likely to be messy, so we
> really need to get consensus on whether this is the right thing to do,
> and whether it *can* be done now for PG10.
FWIW, I'd much rather see us get it right the first time than release
PG10 with a syntax that we'll regret later. I do not think that beta2,
or even beta3, is too late for such a change.
I'm not taking a position on whether this proposal is actually better
than what we have. But if there's a consensus that it is, we should
go ahead and do it, not worry that it's too late.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2017-07-06 20:24:07 | Re: Multi column range partition table |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2017-07-06 19:55:15 | Re: Multi column range partition table |