On 05/23/2016 03:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes:
>> 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.

I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to define a partition as a list of
segments within a single table that represent the partition?

But then again, maybe we need to start with a clear notion of what
problems people are trying to solve when they use partitions. At least
some of the historic reasons are no longer valid.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to