From: | NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Shane Ambler" <pgsql(at)sheeky(dot)biz>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Date: | 2007-03-08 08:22:27 |
Message-ID: | d3c4af540703080022l1cd34e7fo5e6712391bec0839@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Hi,
> There are 2 other reasons to favor triggers though:
>
> 1) People (Josh Drake comes to mind) have found that if you get over
> a tiny number of partitions, the performance of rules is abysmal.
>
> 2) I believe it should be possible to construct an update trigger
> that allows you to perform updates that will place the row in
> question into a new partition. While I can see cases for simply
> disallowing updates to the partitioning key, I think there are also
> times when being able to do that would be very useful.
The consensus seems to be veering towards triggers.
>
> I think it'd be great to make adding and removing partitions as
> simple as ALTER TABLE. I don't think that DELETE should be the
> mechanism to drop a partition, though. Again, DML statements
> shouldn't be performing DDL.
Since partition is inheritance-based, a simple DROP or "NO INHERIT" will do
the job to deal with the partition. Do we want to reinvent additional syntax
when these are around and are documented?
Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-08 08:28:32 | Re: Proposed ProcessUtility() API additions |
Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-03-08 08:09:54 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-08 08:45:43 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-03-08 08:09:54 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |