Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Cohen <jcohen(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Warren Turkal <turkal(at)google(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning grammar
Date: 2008-01-15 16:54:18
Message-ID: 478CE53A.8080106@bluegap.ch
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> Yes, but the problem with the timestamp partitioned tables is, that the
> window is sliding. Thus you would need two alter tables for each new
> period. One that changes the constraint + one that creates the new
> partition. So it seems natural to join the two concepts for such a
> partitioning syntax.

If you think in terms of split points, having to alter two table is not
true. It's better

> Personally I find the automatic partition idea intriguing, where you
> only have to choose an expression that equates to one value (value
> group) per partition (and possibly a way to derive a partition name).
> Then a partition is automatically created when a new row arrives for a
> new value. That does not however address Tom's concern of rejecting data
> that is outside the acceptable window, but maybe that is better dealt
> with in the application anyways.
>
> Andreas
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2008-01-15 16:58:20 Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2008-01-15 16:53:22 Re: Tuning Postgresql on Windows XP Pro 32 bit