| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: On partitioning |
| Date: | 2014-12-13 17:40:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20141213174016.GC29692@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:03:12AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, range and list partition definitions are very similar, but
> hash partition definitions are a different kettle of fish. I don't
> think we really need hash partitioning for anything right away -
> it's pretty useless unless you've got, say, a way for the partitions
> to be foreign tables living on remote servers -
There's a patch enabling exactly this feature in the queue for 9.5.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1386
> but we shouldn't pick a design that will make it really hard to add
> later.
Indeed not :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-12-13 18:19:57 | Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-12-13 17:23:22 | Re: On partitioning |