Hi Robert,
> I am a little fuzzy on what you're proposing here, but I think you're
> saying that you're only going to support range partitioning on
> integers or dates and that you plan to use the text type to store the
> integer or date values. FWIW, those don't seem like very good
> decisio
Thanks for your feedback, Emmanuel.
Here are my comments:
On 2/10/09, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> I will be traveling until next Tuesday and will have no access to email so
> don't be surprised if I don't follow up this week.
> The overall approach seems sound. The metadata table sho
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Amit Gupta wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> We are considering to following approach:
> 1. metadata table pg_partitions is defined as follows:
> CATALOG(pg_partitions,2336) BKI_WITHOUT_OIDS
> {
>Oid partrelid; // partition table Oid
>Oid parentr
Hi Amit,
I will be traveling until next Tuesday and will have no access to email
so don't be surprised if I don't follow up this week.
The overall approach seems sound. The metadata table should help also
for DDL to find out overlapping ranges or duplicate list entries.
So far, I have not tried
Hi Emmanuel,
We are considering to following approach:
1. metadata table pg_partitions is defined as follows:
CATALOG(pg_partitions,2336) BKI_WITHOUT_OIDS
{
Oid partrelid; // partition table Oid
Oid parentrelid; // Parent table Oid
int4parttype; // Type o
Hi Emmanuel,
On 1/26/09, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> I overlooked the fact that you dropped composite partitions and
> subpartitions template from the proposal presented in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00413.php.
> Is it because this is too hard to suppo
Hi Amit,
I overlooked the fact that you dropped composite partitions and
subpartitions template from the proposal presented in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00413.php.
Is it because this is too hard to support? or you don't see any
immediate need for it?
Thanks,
Emm
Hi Emmanuel,
Please find my comments in-lined:
On 1/23/09, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
>
> Amit,
>
> You might want to put this on the
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning wiki page.
Sure.
How does your timeline look like for this implementation?
The implementation is planned a
Amit,
You might want to put this on the
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning wiki page.
How does your timeline look like for this implementation?
I would be happy to contribute C triggers to your implementation. From
what I understood in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hack
Amit,
Wow, thanks!
As you probably know, we're already in freeze for 8.4. So this patch
will need to go on the first commitfest for 8.5, in May or June.
--Josh
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.
10 matches
Mail list logo
