| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning |
| Date: | 2015-08-21 06:20:11 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdPX9RqV0x6UO9LxMaugmcwsx=ajbYeacfT3BROYnYGxXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Amit Langote <
Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2015-08-21 AM 06:27, David Fetter wrote:
>
> >> By the last sentence, do you mean only UPDATEs to the partition key that
> >> cause rows to jump partitions or simply any UPDATEs to the partition
> key?
> >
> > I don't know what Simon had in mind, but it seems to me that we have
> > the following in descending order of convenience to users, and I
> > presume, descending order of difficulty of implementation:
> >
> > 1. Updates propagate transparently, moving rows between partitions if
> needed.
> >
> > 2. Updates fail only if the change to a partition key would cause the
> > row to have to move to another partition.
> >
> > 3. All updates to the partition key fail.
> >
>
> I was thinking I'd implement 2.
>
>
+1. IMHO thats a good starting point.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-08-21 06:56:22 | Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2015-08-21 05:52:08 | Re: Declarative partitioning |