Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, henk de wit <henk53602(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Date: 2009-05-07 02:27:00
Message-ID: 4077.1241663220@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I think there should be a way to refer to individual partitions as
> objects.

Yeah, the individual partitions should be nameable tables, otherwise we
will be reinventing a *whole* lot of management stuff to little gain.
I don't actually think there is anything wrong with using table
inheritance as the basic infrastructure --- I just want more smarts
about one particular use pattern of inheritance.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2009-05-07 02:56:24 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-05-07 02:16:14 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?