Re: Partitioning feature ...
От | Nikhil Sontakke |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Partitioning feature ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | a301bfd90903312207p732cc50dpb22978f989d1e6ff@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Partitioning feature ... (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
+1.
This seems to be the best way forward if we stick to triggers for partitioning. I think they appear to serve the purpose well for this use-case and maybe with this scheme they will be low-level enough too.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
http://www.enterprisedb.com
If it's documented I think it's well hidden ;-) ISTM that the fact that we implement FK constraints via triggers is really an implementation detail, not something the user should be encouraged to mess with.We already have system triggers -- the FK triggers. I don't think we've
had all that much trouble with them.
In the case of the FK triggers, it's intentional (and maybe even
documented) that users should be able to place their own triggers before
or after the FK triggers.Probably not. ISTM that the scheme should turn tgisconstraint into a multi-valued item (tgkind: 'u' = userland, 'c'= constraint, 'p' = partition or some such).Is there a good reason why partitioning
triggers should be different?
+1.
Regards,
Nikhils
--
http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: