From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |
Date: | 2008-01-12 18:46:53 |
Message-ID: | 20080112184653.GD7216@europa.idg.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 05:47:30PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 01:59 +0100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > The syntax is half the problem, performance is the other.
>
> The syntax looks great to me, but I think it is about 5% of the problem,
> maybe less. I don't really have any questions about the syntax, but I
> may have thoughts when the implementation details emerge.
Yes, that's for another thread. Since the discussion was abot using
grammar to control partitions I wanted to get some grammar out. More
details on other stuff soon.
>
> I'm not sure you'll be able to use PARTITION BY since its part of the
> SQL Standard for Windowed grouping, which we do hope to implement one
> day. It will be confusing to have two completely separate meanings for
> the one phrase in our grammar.
I think it's fine. It doesn't cause conflicts in the grammar (in fact,
the Greenplum grammar implements both meanings right now with no
confusion).
Thanks,
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2008-01-12 18:50:15 | Re: Postgresql Materialized views |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-01-12 18:46:16 | Re: Transaction Snapshot Cloning |