On 2015/11/06 1:29, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Amit Langote > <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> The DDL and catalogs part are not much different from what I had last >> described though I took a few steps to simplify things. I dropped the >> multi-level partitioning bit > > Hmm, that doesn't sound good to me. I think multi-level partitioning > is a reasonably important use case.
I agree. I'm in the process of reformulating this proposal from the syntax, catalog and DDL -centric perspective and will re-incorporate multi-level partitioning notion into it. It was a mistake to drop it. I am thinking of introducing an explicit notion of sub-partition key and sub-partitions (of the top parent as far as syntactic notation is concerned). I guess it would not be unreasonable to think that most use-cases that multi-level partitioning is used for require at most 2 levels. It will enable us to use a more intuitive syntax and make internals easier to manage. 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