Re: Error that shouldn't happen?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Error that shouldn't happen?
Date: 2017-05-18 20:55:21
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbmoztdCKqgz0iiZx_1zxMJYh_0VL20wX7gwixxZ_6nQQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:46 PM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:

> On 5/18/2017 1:40 PM, Andrew Kerber wrote:
>
>> It appears to me you might be making this a lot more difficult than
>> necessary. Why not just pre-create the required partitions daily or weekly
>> or monthly? Or do you have a requirement that a new partition only be
>> created the first time it is required?
>>
>
> +1
>
> we create new partitions in advance of their being needed as part of a
> maintenance process that's strictly single threaded.

​While I've been trying to explain the mechanics involved here I agree that
the whole idea of exceptionally creating a table in a trigger is just
asking for trouble. I do get the idea of not wanting an external
maintenance process involved that needs to be setup and maintained, and
maybe there are now better options with "workers", but the trade-offs
involved would start leaning me heavily toward having a maintenance
routine, especially in a production environment, and at that point you
should mirror production in development.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Eckhardt 2017-05-18 21:29:23 Re: Call for users to talk about table partitioning
Previous Message John R Pierce 2017-05-18 20:46:35 Re: Error that shouldn't happen?