Re: On partitioning
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-11-12T22:06:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > I thought putting the partition boundaries into pg_inherits was a > strange choice. I'd put it in pg_class, or in pg_partition if we > decide to create that. Yeah. I rather doubt that we want this mechanism to be very closely tied to the existing inheritance features. If we do that, we are going to need a boatload of error checks to prevent people from breaking partitioned tables by applying the sort of twiddling that inheritance allows. > Maybe as anyarray, but I think pg_node_tree > might even be better. That can also represent data of some arbitrary > type, but it doesn't enforce that everything is uniform. Of course, the more general you make it, the more likely that it'll be impossible to optimize well. regards, tom lane