Re: Syntax for partitioning

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>

From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
To: Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil.sontakke@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-10-29T17:33:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Nikhil Sontakke
<nikhil.sontakke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> So +1 on solidifying the syntax first and then sorting out the other
> minute, intricate details later..

I like that idea as well but I have a concern. What will we do with
pg_dump. If the PARTITION commands are just syntactic sugar for
creating constraints and inherited tables then pg_dump will have to
generate the more generic commands for those objects. When we
eventually have real partitioning then restoring such a dump will not
create real partitions, just inherited tables. Perhaps we need some
kind of option to reverse-engineer partitioning commands from the
inheritance structure,  but I fear having pg_dump reverse engineer
inherited tables to produce partitioning commands will be too hard and
error-prone. Hopefully that's too pessimistic though, if they were
produced by PARTITION commands they should be pretty regular.

-- 
greg