On Thursday 29 October 2009 18:33:22 Greg Stark wrote: > 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. One could have a system catalog containing the partitioning information and generate the constraints et al. from that and mark them in pg_depend...
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
