On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Dmitry Ivanov <d.iva...@postgrespro.ru> > wrote: > > We (PostgresPro) have been working on pg_pathman for quite a while, and > > since it's obviously going to become the thing of the past, it would be a > > wasted effort if we didn't try to participate. > > > > For starters, I'd love to work on both plan-time & run-time partition > > pruning. I created a custom node for run-time partition elimination, so I > > think I'm capable of developing something similar. That would be fantastic. I and my colleagues at EnterpriseDB can > surely help review; Great! And it is very cool that we have basic infrastructure already committed. Thanks a lot to you and everybody involved. > of course, maybe you and some of your colleagues > would like to help review our patches, too. We understand our reviewing performance is not sufficient. Will try to do better during next commitfest. > Do you think this is > likely to be something where you can get something done quickly, with > the hope of getting it into v10? Yes, because we have set of features already implemented in pg_pathman. In particular we have following features from your list and some more. - more efficient plan-time partition pruning (constraint exclusion is too slow) - run-time partition pruning - insert (and eventually update) tuple routing for foreign partitions - hash partitioning - not scanning the parent Time is growing short, but it would > be great to polish this a little more before we ship it. > Yes. Getting at least some of this features committed to v10 would be great and improve partitioning usability a lot. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
