| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "vacuum(at)quantentunnel(dot)de" <vacuum(at)quantentunnel(dot)de>, Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "kedar(dot)potdar(at)gmail(dot)com" <kedar(dot)potdar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Automating Partitions in PostgreSQL - Query on syntax |
| Date: | 2009-04-22 15:21:34 |
| Message-ID: | 6DAFE8F5425AB84DB3FCA4537D829A561D81B934D6@M0164.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Which leads me to the same conclusion: anything as complicated as CASE
> is the wrong design. But perhaps for slightly different reasons.
What I like about the sql CASE is, that it is expression based, and thus
allows full flexibility in partitioning and is highly self documenting.
Do we need to invent special syntax, or could we use common syntax and
detect specific use cases and handle them specially ?
e.g. "when a >= const1 and a < const2 ...; when a >= const2 and a < const3"
- check a btree opclass exists for datatype of a
- prove the partitions don't overlap
- prove the btree order of the partitions
- ...
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-22 15:26:41 | Re: BUG #4774: Bug with use execute+xml+xml_encode_special_chars |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-22 15:11:47 | Re: Workaround for bug #4608? |