Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:56:07AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Prompted by a comment in the UPDATE/LIMIT thread, I saw Marko Tiikkaja > > reference Tom's post > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1598.1399826...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > which mentions the possibility of a different partitioning > > implementation than what we have so far. As it turns out, I've been > > thinking about partitioning recently, so I thought I would share what > > I'm thinking so that others can poke holes. My intention is to try to > > implement this as soon as possible. > > I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted > to chime in to say I think our current partitioning implementation is > too heavy administratively, error-prone, and performance-heavy.
On the contrary, I think there was lots of progress; there's lots of useful feedback from the initial design proposal I posted. I am a bit sad to admit that I'm not working on it at the moment as I had originally planned, though, because other priorities slipped in and I am not able to work on this for a while. Therefore if someone else wants to work on this topic, be my guest -- otherwise I hope to get on it in a few months. > I support a redesign of this feature. I think the current mixture of > inheritance, triggers/rules, and check constraints can be properly > characterized as a Frankenstein solution, where we paste together parts > until we get something that works --- our partitioning badly needs a > redesign. Agreed, and I don't think just hiding the stitches is good enough. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
