Hi, > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@2ndquadrant.com] > On 2014-10-27 06:29:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Amit Langote wrote: > > > FWIW, I think Robert's criticism regarding not basing this on inheritance > > > scheme was not responded to. > > > > It was responded to by ignoring it. I didn't see anybody else > > supporting the idea that inheritance is in any way a sane thing to base > > partitioning on. Sure, we have accumulated lots of kludges over the > > years to cope with the fact that, really, it doesn't work very well. So > > what. We can keep them, I don't care. > > As far as I understdood Robert's criticism it was more about the > internals, than about the userland representation. To me it's absolutely > clear that 'real partitioning' userland shouldn't be based on the > current hacks to allow it.
For my understanding: By partitioning 'userland' representation, do you mean an implementation choice where a partition is literally an inheritance child of the partitioned table as registered in pg_inherits? Or something else? Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
