Re: Syntax for partitioning

On 9 November 2011 15:15, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So will this be revived any time soon?  Were there any subsequent
>>> proposals which were posted?
>>>
>>
>> there was an updated patch, you can find in this thread:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20100114181323.9A33.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp
>>
>> not sure what happens after that.
>
> I reviewed a later version here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-07/msg00183.php

Ah yes, I've located a reference to this on the wiki now. No wiki
updates needed.

I guess it's a matter of whether Takahiro-san has the time and desire
to pick this up again any time soon. Whenever I cross the topic of
partitioning in PostgreSQL, it's always a tad embarrassing to explain
that it's still hacky compared to other database systems (and this
came up again last week), so this is of particular interest to me. At
the moment there's no testing required as it's returned with feedback,
but I'm very willing to help assist in testing it should this return
to the fore again. The idea of getting both this and materialised
views in time for 9.3 is extremely appealing; a performance release
(9.2) followed by a usability release.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company