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. Regards, Nikhils -- EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
