| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Johansson <jan(dot)johansson(dot)mr(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inheritance |
| Date: | 2016-05-23 22:31:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20160523223125.GA406761@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> My feeling about it is that we need to provide a partitioning feature
> that doesn't rely on the current notion of inheritance at all. We've
> heard from multiple users who want to use large numbers of partitions,
> enough that simply having a separate relcache entry for each partition
> would be a performance problem, never mind the current approach to
> planning queries over inheritance trees. So the partitions need to be
> objects much simpler than full-fledged tables.
Sorry to hijack the thread, but I agree on this, and I'm worried that
the patch being floated for partitioning may paint us on a corner from
which it may be difficult to get out.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-23 23:11:29 | Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #14153: Unrecognized node type error when upsert is present in recursive CTE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-23 22:26:24 | Re: Inheritance |