On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I don't think that's mutually exclusive with the idea of >> partitions-as-tables. I mean, you can add code to the ALTER TABLE >> path that says if (i_am_not_the_partitioning_root) ereport(ERROR, ...) >> wherever you want. > > That'll be a lot of places you'll need to touch. More fundamentally: Why > should we name something a table that's not one?
Well, I'm not convinced that it isn't one. And adding a new relkind will involve a bunch of code churn, too. But I don't much care to pre-litigate this: when someone has got a patch, we can either agree that the approach is OK or argue that it is problematic because X. I think we need to hammer down the design in broad strokes first, and I'm not sure we're totally there yet. >> - Direct access to individual partitions to bypass >> tuple-routing/query-planning overhead. > > I think that might be ok in some cases, but in general I'd be very wary > to allow that. I think it might be ok to allow direct read access, but > everything else I'd be opposed. I'd much rather go the route of allowing > to few things and then gradually opening up if required than the other > way round (as that pretty much will never happen because it'll break > deployed systems). Why? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
