| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Date: | 2017-03-15 17:01:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZAtHb9MrT3om=2BZ0W4tTT=i05X8QicQui8ZLmvqs-uQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:39 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> Agreed. Perhaps both types of syntax should be supported, one that is
> friendly to users and one that is precise for dump tools and those who
> care get in the weeds.
Eventually, sure. For the first version, I want to skip the friendly
syntax and just add the necessary syntax. That makes it easier to
make sure that pg_dump and everything are working the way you want.
Range and list partitioning could potentially grow convenience syntax
around partition creation, too, but that wasn't essential for the
first patch, so we cut it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-15 17:07:03 | Re: identity columns |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-15 16:58:56 | Re: background sessions |