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.
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? |