On 27-01-2015 AM 05:46, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/25/15 7:42 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 21-01-2015 PM 07:26, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Ok, I will limit myself to focusing on following things at the moment:
>>>
>>> * Provide syntax in CREATE TABLE to declare partition key
>>
>> While working on this,
On 1/25/15 7:42 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
On 21-01-2015 PM 07:26, Amit Langote wrote:
Ok, I will limit myself to focusing on following things at the moment:
* Provide syntax in CREATE TABLE to declare partition key
While working on this, I stumbled upon the question of how we deal with
any inde
On 21-01-2015 PM 07:26, Amit Langote wrote:
> Ok, I will limit myself to focusing on following things at the moment:
>
> * Provide syntax in CREATE TABLE to declare partition key
While working on this, I stumbled upon the question of how we deal with
any index definitions following from constrain
On 21-01-2015 AM 01:42, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
Specifically, do we regard a partitions as pg_inherits children of its
partitioning parent?
>>>
>>> I don't think this is totally an all-or-nothing decision. I think
>>> everyone is agree
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>>> Specifically, do we regard a partitions as pg_inherits children of its
>>> partitioning parent?
>>
>> I don't think this is totally an all-or-nothing decision. I think
>> everyone is agreed that we need to not break things that work today -
On 20-01-2015 AM 10:48, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 17-01-2015 AM 02:34, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>> * It is desirable to treat partitions as pg_class relations with perhaps
>>> a new relkind(s). We may want to choose an implementation where only
On 17-01-2015 AM 02:34, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> * It has been repeatedly pointed out that we may want to decouple
>> partitioning from inheritance because implementing partitioning as an
>> extension of inheritance mechanism means that we have
On 19-01-2015 PM 12:37, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Amit Langote
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if we could add a clause like DISTRIBUTED BY to complement
>>> PARTITION ON that represents a hash distributed/partiti
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
> > * It has been repeatedly pointed out that we may want to decouple
> > partitioning from inheritance because implementing partitioning as an
> > extension of inheritance mechanism mea
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> * It has been repeatedly pointed out that we may want to decouple
> partitioning from inheritance because implementing partitioning as an
> extension of inheritance mechanism means that we have to keep all the
> existing semantics which might
On 06-01-2015 PM 03:40, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> I agree that while we are discussing these points, we could also be
> discussing how we solve problems of existing partitioning implementation
> using whatever the above things end up being. Proposed approaches to
> solve those problems might be usef
11 matches
Mail list logo
