|From:||Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)frogthinker(dot)org>|
|To:||Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>|
|Subject:||Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Another advantage of triggers over rules is that it would work with COPY
which is probably a desired feature.
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> just remembering that -patches is a dead list, so i'm sending this to
> -hackers where it will have more visibility...
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
> Date: Oct 22, 2008 9:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
> To: Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
> Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>,
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> On 10/22/08, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are
>>>>> on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might
>>>>> 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.
>>> seems like you're a prophet... or i miss something?
>> Maybe I will try to summarize the functionality of this patch, rebase it
>> against latest CVS head and try to get it on the commitfest queue atleast
>> for further feedback to keep the ball rolling on auto-partitioning...
> yeah! i was thinking on doing that but still have no time... and
> frankly you're the best man for the job ;)
> one thing i was thinking of is to use triggers instead of rules just
> as our current docs recommends
> with the benefit that a trigger can check if the child table exists
> for the range being inserted and if not it can create it first...
> haven't looked at the code in the detail but seems that your patch is
> still missing the "create rule" part so we are in time to change
> that... no?
FTO @ Frog Thinker
Open Source Development & Consulting
|Next Message||Simon Riggs||2008-10-22 21:56:37||Re: minimal update|
|Previous Message||Simon Riggs||2008-10-22 21:48:10||Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rework subtransaction commit protocol for hot standby.|
|Next Message||Nikhil Sontakke||2008-10-23 12:41:41||Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1|
|Previous Message||Jaime Casanova||2008-10-22 14:44:46||Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1|