Re: Syntax for partitioning

From: Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Syntax for partitioning
Date: 2011-11-09 14:35:28
Message-ID: CAJKUy5g-d_UiOUiLCp-GmyX6DVxAbiSNPopxJh4=2M6N5G0-yw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikhil Sontakke 2011-11-09 14:51:58 Re: Concurrent CREATE TABLE/DROP SCHEMA leaves inconsistent leftovers
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-11-09 14:21:22 Re: a modest improvement to get_object_address()