On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:56:07AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Prompted by a comment in the UPDATE/LIMIT thread, I saw Marko Tiikkaja > reference Tom's post > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1598.1399826...@sss.pgh.pa.us > which mentions the possibility of a different partitioning > implementation than what we have so far. As it turns out, I've been > thinking about partitioning recently, so I thought I would share what > I'm thinking so that others can poke holes. My intention is to try to > implement this as soon as possible.
I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted to chime in to say I think our current partitioning implementation is too heavy administratively, error-prone, and performance-heavy. I support a redesign of this feature. I think the current mixture of inheritance, triggers/rules, and check constraints can be properly characterized as a Frankenstein solution, where we paste together parts until we get something that works --- our partitioning badly needs a redesign. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
