| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tiago Daniel Jacobs" <tiago(at)mdtestudio(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3479: contraint exclusion and locks |
| Date: | 2007-07-23 15:34:54 |
| Message-ID: | 87fy3fkuap.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Tiago Daniel Jacobs" <tiago(at)mdtestudio(dot)com(dot)br> writes:
> <small><font face="Arial">Tom and Gregory. U're right! The problem is
> that we're using constraints for partitioned tables and by definition,
> a partition never, absolutely never, can affect the entire system.<br>
> <br>
> But I think that we have nothing to do about this. There are plans to
> another kind of partitioning? If yes, I would like to contribute. If
> not, i`m okay. <br>
There are lots of ideas of where to go with partitioning including possibly
ditching the use of constraints. But I don't think there's any settled plans
yet.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Woody Woodring | 2007-07-23 16:02:55 | Should SERIAL column have MAXVAL set on sequence |
| Previous Message | Tiago Daniel Jacobs | 2007-07-23 14:46:31 | Re: BUG #3479: contraint exclusion and locks |