Robert Haas wrote: > I support building incrementally, but I don't see why we want to > change the catalog structure and then change it again. That seems > like it makes the project more work, not less.
I agree with what you say. I thought you were saying that the implementation had to provide multi-partitioning from the get-go, not just the design. > To me, it seems like there is a pretty obvious approach here: each > table can be either a plain table, or a partition root (which can look > just like an empty inheritance parent). Then multi-level partitioning > falls right out of that design without needing to do anything extra. Sounds reasonable. > I think it is also worth getting the syntax right from the beginning. Yes, that's critical. We could implement the whole thing in gram.y and then have the unsupported cases throw errors; then it's easy to see that there are no grammar conflicts to deal with later. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
