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 At least some of the historic reasons are no longer valid. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
