On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:42 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy, > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 8:39 PM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:43 PM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> My point below is a bit off-topic, but I want to share it here. Since > >> we implement a partitioned table in PG with the inherited class, it has > much > >> more flexibility than other databases. Like in PG, we allow different > partitions > >> have different physical order, different indexes, maybe different > index states. > >> that would cause our development work hard in many places and cause some > >> runtime issues as well (like catalog memory usage), have we discussed > >> limiting some flexibility so that we can have better coding/running > experience? > >> I want to do some research in this direction, but it would be better > that I can > >> listen to any advice from others. More specifically, I want to reduce > the memory > >> usage of Partitioned table/index as the first step. In my testing, > each IndexOptInfo > >> will use 2kB memory in each backend. > > > > > > As for the compatible issue, will it be ok to introduce a new concept > like " > > CREATE TABLE p (a int) partitioned by list(a) RESTRICTED". We can add > these > > limitation to restricted partitioned relation only. > > I think you'd agree that the topics you want to discuss deserve a > separate discussion thread. You may refer to this discussion in that > new thread if you think that your proposals can solve the problem > being discussed here more generally, which would of course be great. > > Sure, I can prepare more data and start a new thread for this. -- Best Regards Andy Fan (https://www.aliyun.com/)
