Re: Hash partitioning.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Yuri Levinsky <yuril(at)celltick(dot)com> wrote:

> Guys,
> I am sorry for taking your time. The reason for my question is:
> As former Oracle DBA and now simple beginner PostgreSQL DBA I would like
> to say: the current partitioning mechanism might be improved. Sorry, it
> seems to me far behind yesterday requirements. As model for improvement
> the Oracle might be taken as example. Unfortunately I am not writing an
> C code and see my benefit to PostgreSQL community in only rising this
> issue. I'll be very happy to be helpful in something else, but...
>

Please don't flee over this...

As I think you can see, now, the partitioning problem is tougher than it
may at first seem to be. It's quite useful to quickly get to the point of
understanding that.

There would indeed be merit in improving the partitioning apparatus,
and actually, I think it's been a couple of years since there has been
serious discussion of this.

The discussion tends to head into the rabbit hole of disputing about
whether one mechanism or another is ideal. That's the wrong starting
point - we shouldn't start with what's easiest to make "ideal," we
should start by determining what is required/desirable, without too
much reference, at least initially, on to how to achieve it.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"