On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil.sonta...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > So +1 on solidifying the syntax first and then sorting out the other > minute, intricate details later..
I like that idea as well but I have a concern. What will we do with pg_dump. If the PARTITION commands are just syntactic sugar for creating constraints and inherited tables then pg_dump will have to generate the more generic commands for those objects. When we eventually have real partitioning then restoring such a dump will not create real partitions, just inherited tables. Perhaps we need some kind of option to reverse-engineer partitioning commands from the inheritance structure, but I fear having pg_dump reverse engineer inherited tables to produce partitioning commands will be too hard and error-prone. Hopefully that's too pessimistic though, if they were produced by PARTITION commands they should be pretty regular. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
