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.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to