Re: Declarative partitioning

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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 ..)