| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning option for COPY |
| Date: | 2009-11-23 15:26:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1258989976.27757.5756.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 09:39 -0500, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> I think you should read the thread and the patch
I did read the thread and patch in full before posting. My opinions are
given to help you and the community towards a desirable common goal.
I was unaware you were developing these ideas and so was unable to
provide comments until now. My review of Kedar's patch in July did lay
out in general terms a specific implementation route for future work on
partitioning. I had thought I might not have made those comments clearly
enough, so gave a more specific description of what I consider to be a
more workable and general solution for cacheing and using partitioning
metadata.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-23 15:28:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Updating column on row update |
| Previous Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-11-23 15:24:26 | Re: Partitioning option for COPY |