Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A5014CC4-D5BA-4105-BCD0-1AF5C241BBCB@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 4, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> > That's calling for a try :) > > What about a new index type that follows the partitioning scheme in its > root pages in a way that allow the locking to occur in a subpart of it, > rather than for the whole index. > > Well, maybe that needs to have an index OID per known partition all > handled into the same physical index for the locking system to work, but > that could mean that indexes would get their objsubid like relations > have their attributes now. It could even be that what we need is a > meta-index and a new kind if index page pointer that would lead to > another physical index. Surely the top-level structure here needs to be organized by key, not partition; else it's no better than an index per partition. > Oh and that's yet another idea that depends on seeing a partition syntax > supporting current features in core. When will we sketch a plan on that > so that individual hackers interested into a subpart are able to work on > it? I think the last years are telling us that nobody will ever will to > handle it all by himself. Well, or you have to hire Simon :) > > Given such an agenda, I'd argue for a feature branch being open for > partitioning so that incremental reviewed work can happen there until we > have enough pieces to consider merging into HEAD. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to official topic branches at some point in the future, but I think it's premature tospeculate about whether it'd be useful here. What is needed right now is design work, not code. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: