|From:||Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>|
|To:||Jerry Sievers <jerry(dot)sievers(at)comcast(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote:
> That our version of partitioning can be overloaded like this though I
> think adds power. A bit of which we lost adding the restrictgion.
That's why I'd be opposed to any partitioning scheme that removed the ability to have different fields in different children. We've found that ability to be very useful. Likewise, I think we need to have intelligent plans involving a parent table that's either completely empty or mostly empty.
As for dealing with inheritance and putting stuff on some children but not others, take a look at http://pgfoundry.org/projects/enova-tools/. There's a presentation there that discusses how we solved these issues and it includes the tools we created to do it. Note that we're close to releasing a cleaner version of that stuff, so if you decide to use it please ping me off-list if we haven't gotten the new stuff posted.
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
|Next Message||Jim Nasby||2011-07-26 23:30:11||Re: storing TZ along timestamps|
|Previous Message||Christopher Browne||2011-07-26 22:56:46||Re: storing TZ along timestamps|