On Sep 1, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> =?iso-8859-1?Q?PostgreSQL_-_Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres@cybertec.at> writes:
>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> This is really premature, and anything you do along those lines now will
>>> probably never get committed.
> 
>> well, why non-overlapping? the idea is to make append smart enough to
>> take the sorted lists from below and merge them which will give sorted
>> output as well.
> 
> Well, an extra merge step is going to change the cost comparisons quite
> a bit; see Greg Starks' comments.  But in any case, my point wasn't that
> this is something we should never do; it was that it makes more sense to
> wait till something has happened with explicit partitioning.
> 
>>> The project direction is that we are going to add some explicit
>>> representation of partitioned tables.
> 
>> can you outline some ideas here and maybe point to some useful discussion here?
> 
> There's been boatloads of discussion of partitioning, and at least one
> submitted patch, over the past year or so ...
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 


--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de