Re: partitioning using dblink

From: Scara Maccai <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: partitioning using dblink
Date: 2008-02-29 17:19:27
Message-ID: 726329.26654.qm@web28113.mail.ukl.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Exactly, because inheritance/constraint exclusion wont work with views.

Ok, so there should be something written in the docs about it...
From:

"the information about a view in the PostgreSQL
system catalogs is exactly the same as it is for a table. So for the
parser, there is absolutely no difference between a table and a view"

I got that there should be no difference... plus, I don't get any errors, it's only that data in the view doesn't show up when I query the master table.

> > 2) Why am I supposed to use unions in the view?
>
> So that query evaluator can exclude unnecessary partitions.

Ok: that would be another way of having partitions, right?

> > 3) I know that I am doing select * from tbl in the remote db; that is
> something I can work on later.
> > At least I would like to see it working, since there is nothing in the docs
> that says it shouldn't be working...
> > 4) I am not able to rewrite my queries.
>
> Have fun then.

Yeah I know...

Thank you

___________________________________
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail:
http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Clodoaldo 2008-02-29 17:23:32 Re: Insert vs Update syntax
Previous Message Brent Friedman 2008-02-29 17:13:58 Re: Insert vs Update syntax