| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inheriting table AMs for partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2019-03-05 18:19:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYehM5MhhQXaACZN_AxhT_Rc-DWnvAsDRruhc2XHVqyHw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:59 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Based on this mail I'm currently planning to simply forbid specifying
> USING for partitioned tables. Then we can argue about this later.
+1. I actually think that might be the right thing in the long-term,
but it undeniably avoids committing to any particular decision in the
short term, which seems good.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2019-03-05 18:43:50 | Windows 32 bit vs circle test |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-05 18:16:50 | Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans |