From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning |
Date: | 2015-11-20 09:18:24 |
Message-ID: | 564EE560.60106@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015/11/06 1:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> The DDL and catalogs part are not much different from what I had last
>> described though I took a few steps to simplify things. I dropped the
>> multi-level partitioning bit
>
> Hmm, that doesn't sound good to me. I think multi-level partitioning
> is a reasonably important use case.
I agree. I'm in the process of reformulating this proposal from the
syntax, catalog and DDL -centric perspective and will re-incorporate
multi-level partitioning notion into it. It was a mistake to drop it.
I am thinking of introducing an explicit notion of sub-partition key and
sub-partitions (of the top parent as far as syntactic notation is
concerned). I guess it would not be unreasonable to think that most
use-cases that multi-level partitioning is used for require at most 2
levels. It will enable us to use a more intuitive syntax and make
internals easier to manage.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-11-20 10:20:36 | Re: Declarative partitioning |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2015-11-20 09:04:00 | Re: COPY (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING ..) |