| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions |
| Date: | 2008-01-09 22:52:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20080109225209.GD999@europa.idg.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 08:51:30PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That's what I would have done if it was easier to do with constraint exclusion
> > (did only date partitioning), as the reporting queries will always have some
> > server (stats by services, each service being installed on 1 or more servers)
> > and date restrictions.
>
> Hmm, well if you found declaring the partitions a problem with
> constraint exclusion it's not going to be any easier using other
> declarative approaches.
I disagree (although it is unreasonable for me to do so without posting
syntax -- it's coming). Proper grammar for partition support means
running a single DDL command. The user does not have to line up table
generation with rules (or triggers) and check constraints. As such, I
believe it to be much much easier.
Thanks,
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-01-09 23:22:26 | odd convert_from bug |
| Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2008-01-09 22:48:03 | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps |