Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
| От | Jim Nasby |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | C020BCEB-D1CC-46D9-8461-F2B4E92F7909@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? (Jerry Sievers <jerry.sievers@comcast.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: New partitioning WAS: Check constraints on partition
parents only?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote: > That our version of partitioning can be overloaded like this though I > think adds power. A bit of which we lost adding the restrictgion. That's why I'd be opposed to any partitioning scheme that removed the ability to have different fields in different children.We've found that ability to be very useful. Likewise, I think we need to have intelligent plans involving a parenttable that's either completely empty or mostly empty. As for dealing with inheritance and putting stuff on some children but not others, take a look at http://pgfoundry.org/projects/enova-tools/.There's a presentation there that discusses how we solved these issues and itincludes the tools we created to do it. Note that we're close to releasing a cleaner version of that stuff, so if you decideto use it please ping me off-list if we haven't gotten the new stuff posted. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: