Hi Ildar, On 2016/02/29 7:14, Ildar Musin wrote: > 16/02/16 07:46, Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2016/02/16 11:41, Josh berkus wrote: >>> We're not going to use CE for the new partitioning long-term, are we? This >>> is just the first version, right? >> Yes. My approach in previous versions of stuffing major planner changes in >> with the syntax patch was not quite proper in retrospect. So, I thought >> I'd propose any major planner (and executor) changes later. >> >> Thanks, >> Amit >> > Hello Amit, > > Thank you for your work. I'm currently working on extension aimed at > planner optimization for partitioned tables > (https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_pathman). At this moment I have an > implementation of binary search for range partitioned tables with basic > partitioning keys (date, timestamp, integers etc). And I'd like to try to > combine your syntax and infrastructure with my binary search implementation. > There likely will be changes in range syntax and partitions cache > structure based on discussion. So looking forward for your next patch.
Sure, thanks! I will look at your extension as well. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers