On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > It's going to be complicated and probably buggy, and I think it is heading > in the wrong direction altogether. If you want to partition in some > arbitrary complicated fashion that the system can't reason about very > effectively, we *already have that*. IMO the entire point of building > a new partitioning infrastructure is to build something simple, reliable, > and a whole lot faster than what you can get from inheritance > relationships. And "faster" is going to come mainly from making the > partitioning rules as simple as possible, not as complex as possible.
Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use cases. -- 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
