On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I support building incrementally, but I don't see why we want to
>>> change the catalog structure and then change it again.  That seems
>>> like it makes the project more work, not less.
>> I agree with what you say.  I thought you were saying that the
>> implementation had to provide multi-partitioning from the get-go, not
>> just the design.
> Well, I *hope* that's going to fall out naturally.  If it doesn't, I
> can live with that.  But I hope it will.
>>> To me, it seems like there is a pretty obvious approach here: each
>>> table can be either a plain table, or a partition root (which can look
>>> just like an empty inheritance parent).  Then multi-level partitioning
>>> falls right out of that design without needing to do anything extra.
>> Sounds reasonable.
> Cool.
>>> I think it is also worth getting the syntax right from the beginning.
>> Yes, that's critical.  We could implement the whole thing in gram.y and
>> then have the unsupported cases throw errors; then it's easy to see that
>> there are no grammar conflicts to deal with later.
> That's worth considering, too.

It seems that the consensus is to rework a bit more this patch.
Returned with feedback then?

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

Reply via email to