Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > On 5/23/16 11:05 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> This feature was very much a product of the time, at the height of the >> "Object Relational" fad. The trend for postgres has been in the exact >> opposite direction, towards the SQL standard. Further complicating >> matters, inheritance has been repurposed to be the foundation for >> table partitioning, making heavy changes problematic.
> I don't see why partitioning complicates fixing these issues. ISTM it's > the exact same complaint for both inheritance and partitioning. My feeling about it is that we need to provide a partitioning feature that doesn't rely on the current notion of inheritance at all. We've heard from multiple users who want to use large numbers of partitions, enough that simply having a separate relcache entry for each partition would be a performance problem, never mind the current approach to planning queries over inheritance trees. So the partitions need to be objects much simpler than full-fledged tables. If we had that, and encouraged people to migrate simple partitioning use-cases to it, that might take off enough pressure that we could afford to consider more-complicated inheritance schemes rather than treating inheritance as an unfortunate legacy design. But we're some years away from being able to do that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers