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.


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

Reply via email to