Re: Table Partitioning

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Table Partitioning
Date: 2011-06-23 14:56:08
Message-ID: 4E030DB8020000250003EB11@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:

>> Does The Standard* have anything to say?
>
> I don't know

I dug around in the standard a bit and didn't find anything. Given
that the standard doesn't even touch the issue of indexes because
that a performance tuning implementation detail, it would seem out
of character for them to define table partitioning.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-06-23 15:42:25 spinlock contention
Previous Message Steve Singer 2011-06-23 14:21:48 Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby