Re: On partitioning

Hi,

> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:20 PM
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > In my opinion we can reuse (some of) the existing logic for INHERITS to
> > implement "proper" partitioning, but that should be an implementation
> > detail.
>
> Sure, that would be a sensible way to do it. I mostly care about not
> throwing out all the work that's been done on the planner and
> executor. Maybe you're thinking we'll eventually replace that with
> something better, which is fine, but I wouldn't underestimate the
> effort to make that happen. For example, I think it's be sensible for
> the first patch to just add some new user-visible syntax with some
> additional catalog representation that doesn't actually do all that
> much yet. Then subsequent patches could use that additional metadata
> to optimize partition prune, implement tuple routing, etc.
>

I mentioned upthread about the possibility of resurrecting Itagaki-san's patch [1] to try to make things work in this direction. I would be willing to spend time on this. I see useful reviews of the patch by Robert [2], Simon [3] at the time but it wasn't pursued further. I think those reviews were valuable design input that IMHO would still be relevant. It seems the reviews suggested some significant changes to the design proposed. Off course, there are many other considerations discussed upthread that need to be addressed. Incorporating those changes and others, I think such an approach could be worthwhile.

Thoughts?

[1] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning#Active_Work_In_Progress
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTikP-1_8B04eyIK0sDf8uA5KMo64o8sorFBZE_CT@mail.gmail.com
[3] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1279196337.1735.9598.camel@ebony

Thanks,
Amit