Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
От | NikhilS |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d3c4af540803210745j5ded6107r5871095a3aeb91af@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Hi Simon,
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not be needed in the first place?
I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here, before deciding the further course of actions.
Regards,
Nikhils
-- On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:I think this patch is a reasonable first step and clearly written, but
> Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
> There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00375.php
>
> Please note that this patch tries to automate the activities that
> currently are carried out manually. It does nothing fancy beyond that
> for now. There were a lot of good suggestions, I have noted them down
> but for now I have tried to stick to the initial goal of automating
> existing steps for providing partitioning.
>
> Things that this patch does:
not yet ready for application to Postgres in this commit fest.
I would say we need:
* Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
-hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
suggested syntax or this syntax.
* There are some additional syntax items I don't understand the need
for. So these need to be explained.
* I would be against using the term PARTITION BY since it is already a
phrase that is part of the SQL Standard. Perhaps PARTITIONED BY?
* We need regression tests for any new command syntax
* No docs - that might be the same thing as the first item
--
Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not be needed in the first place?
I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here, before deciding the further course of actions.
Regards,
Nikhils
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: