On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > For what it's worth I disagree with Tom. I think this is a situation > where we need *both* types of solution. Ideally we will be able to use > a plain Append node for cases where we know the relative ordering of > the data in different partitions, but there will always be cases where > the structured partition data doesn't actually match up with the > ordering requested and we'll need to fall back to a merge-append node.
I agree. Explicit partitioning may open up some additional optimization possibilities in certain cases, but Merge Append is more general and extremely valuable in its own right. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
