From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: On partitioning |
Date: | 2014-12-08 19:40:02 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob7OwLsa0PndNHmdF7xHZf7YnMxXnZRSiPY3GmFpxz8+Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 11:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I guess I'm in disagreement with you - and, perhaps - the majority on
>> this point. I think that ship has already sailed: partitions ARE
>> tables. We can try to make it less necessary for users to ever look
>> at those tables as separate objects, and I think that's a good idea.
>> But trying to go from a system where partitions are tables, which is
>> what we have today, to a system where they are not seems like a bad
>> idea to me. If we make a major break from how things work today,
>> we're going to end up having to reimplement stuff that already works.
>
> I don't thing its feasible to drop inheritance partitioning at this
> point; too many user exploit a lot of peculiarities of that system which
> wouldn't be supported by any other system. So any new partitioning
> system we're talking about would be *in addition* to the existing
> system. Hence my prior email trying to make sure that a new proposed
> system is sufficiently different from the existing one to be worthwhile.
I think any new partitioning system should keep the good things about
the existing system, of which there are some, and not try to reinvent
the wheel. The yard stick for a new system shouldn't be "is this
different enough?" but "does this solve the problems without creating
new ones?".
>> Besides, I haven't really seen anyone propose something that sounds
>> like a credible alternative. If we could make partition objects
>> things that the storage layer needs to know about but the query
>> planner doesn't need to understand, that'd be maybe worth considering.
>> But I don't see any way that that's remotely feasible.
>
> On the other hand, as long as partitions exist exclusively at the
> planner layer, we can't fix the existing major shortcomings of
> inheritance partitioning, such as its inability to handle expressions.
> Again, see previous.
Huh?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-12-08 19:45:24 | compiler warnings under MinGW for 9.4 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-12-08 19:39:02 | Re: On partitioning |