Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 11:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The problem has been finding someone who has both the time and the
>> ability to do the work.

> Unfortunately there has been significant debate over which parts of
> partitioning need to be improved. My own view is that considerable
> attention needs to be applied to both the executor and planner to
> improve matters and that syntax improvements are largely irrelevant,
> though seductive.

My thought about it is that what we really need is an explicit notion
of partitioned tables built into the system, instead of trying to make
the planner re-deduce the partitioning behavior from first principles
every time it builds a plan for such a table. Such a notion would
presumably involve some new syntax to allow the partitioning rule to be
specified at table creation time. I agree that the syntax details are a
minor issue, but the set of possible partitioning rules is certainly a
topic of great interest.

regards, tom lane