| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
| Date: | 2009-11-19 14:58:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4B055D32.2090008@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Robert Haas wrote:
> Settling on a syntax, and an internal representation for that syntax,
I've been under the impression that this was only about syntax. What are
the internal additions?
Generally speaking, I'd agree with Simon or even vote for doing the
internals first and add the syntactic sugar only later on.
> seems like it will make subsequent
> discussions about those projects considerably more straightforward,
..or subsequent implementations more complicated, because you have to
support an awkward syntax.
> and it has some value in and of itself since similar notation is used
> by other databases.
That point is well taken, but it would be more compelling if it were the
same or at least a compatible syntax.
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-19 15:12:44 | Re: xpath_table equivalent |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-19 14:53:58 | Re: xpath_table equivalent |