Hi Simon,

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
> > Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
> > There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00375.php
> >
> > Please note that this patch tries to automate the activities that
> > currently are carried out manually. It does nothing fancy beyond that
> > for now. There were a lot of good suggestions, I have noted them down
> > but for now I have tried to stick to the initial goal of automating
> > existing steps for providing partitioning.
> >
> > Things that this patch does:
> I think this patch is a reasonable first step and clearly written, but
> not yet ready for application to Postgres in this commit fest.
> I would say we need:
> * Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
> so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
> -hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
> suggested syntax or this syntax.
> * There are some additional syntax items I don't understand the need
> for. So these need to be explained.
> * I would be against using the term PARTITION BY since it is already a
> phrase that is part of the SQL Standard. Perhaps PARTITIONED BY?
> * We need regression tests for any new command syntax
> * No docs - that might be the same thing as the first item
> --

Thanks for taking a look. But if I am not mistaken Gavin and co. are working
on a much exhaustive proposal. In light of that maybe this patch might not
be needed in the first place?

I will wait for discussion and a subsequent collective consensus here,
before deciding the further course of actions.

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply via email to