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