From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning |
Date: | 2016-02-29 05:01:02 |
Message-ID: | 56D3D08E.4060201@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Ildar,
On 2016/02/29 7:14, Ildar Musin wrote:
> 16/02/16 07:46, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2016/02/16 11:41, Josh berkus wrote:
>>> We're not going to use CE for the new partitioning long-term, are we? This
>>> is just the first version, right?
>> Yes. My approach in previous versions of stuffing major planner changes in
>> with the syntax patch was not quite proper in retrospect. So, I thought
>> I'd propose any major planner (and executor) changes later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amit
>>
> Hello Amit,
>
> Thank you for your work. I'm currently working on extension aimed at
> planner optimization for partitioned tables
> (https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_pathman) At this moment I have an
> implementation of binary search for range partitioned tables with basic
> partitioning keys (date, timestamp, integers etc). And I'd like to try to
> combine your syntax and infrastructure with my binary search implementation.
> There likely will be changes in range syntax and partitions cache
> structure based on discussion. So looking forward for your next patch.
Sure, thanks! I will look at your extension as well.
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-02-29 05:12:42 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-29 04:35:47 | Re: [REVIEW] In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. |