| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: partitionning |
| Date: | 2005-03-10 09:13:00 |
| Message-ID: | 42300F9C.9030801@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Actually I have a strong feeling what really _ought_ to happen here is that
> the inherited tables support in postgres, which never really worked anyways,
> should be deprecated and eventually removed. All that infrastructure should be
> repurposed into partitioned tables. That seems like it would be a nice fit.
>
I don't know about deprecating inheritance, but I agree with pretty much
everything Greg has said on this thread. In particular, I have felt for
several years now that the inheritance infrastructure could be used to
implement table partitioning. We're using inheritance for DIY table
partitioning on very expensive storage hardware (~$500K), and we'd be
dead in the water without it.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Net Virtual Mailing Lists | 2005-03-10 09:31:21 | Problem with inherited table, can you help?... |
| Previous Message | Shaun Clements | 2005-03-10 09:06:29 | Re: pl sql to check if table of table_name exists |