| From: | Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo(dot)romano(at)notorand(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL suitable? |
| Date: | 2017-12-19 14:58:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAHjZ2x6nq3_W3BxzX2tPWZE5Y-yTWXTbniqLb2xo2N+EqbiACQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Sorry, my bad: I confused V10 with v11.
But accordingly to a discussion with Bruce Momjan, table partitionin V10 is
little more than syntactic sugar around old-fashioned table partitioning.
Sub-table partition selection is linear in complexity.
Il 19 dic 2017 15:55, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> ha scritto:
> Vincenzo Romano wrote:
> > I've not tested PG10. But it's not released for production yet!
>
> It definitely is, for a couple of months now. 10.1 (the first bugfix
> release) has been out for over a month.
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-12-19 15:40:24 | Re: PostgreSQL suitable? |
| Previous Message | Tim Clarke | 2017-12-19 14:56:19 | Re: PostgreSQL suitable? |