On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> wrote: > Hi, > > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> Settling on a syntax, and an internal representation for that syntax, > > I've been under the impression that this was only about syntax. What are the > internal additions?
I haven't looked at it in detail, but it adds a new pg_partition table. Whether that table is suitably structured for use by the optimizer is not clear to me. > Generally speaking, I'd agree with Simon or even vote for doing the > internals first and add the syntactic sugar only later on. That's not really possible in this case. The internals consist of taking advantage of the fact that we have explicit knowledge of how the partitions are defined vs. just relying on the (slow) constraint exclusion logic. We can't do that unless, in fact, we have that explicit knowledge, and that requires inventing syntax. > That point is well taken, but it would be more compelling if it were the > same or at least a compatible syntax. There's been an effort to make it close, but I haven't followed it in enough detail to know how close. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
