Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-02-10 Thread Amit Gupta
Thanks for your feedback, Emmanuel. Here are my comments: On 2/10/09, Emmanuel Cecchet m...@frogthinker.org wrote: Hi Amit, I will be traveling until next Tuesday and will have no access to email so don't be surprised if I don't follow up this week. The overall approach seems sound. The

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-02-10 Thread Amit Gupta
Hi Robert, I am a little fuzzy on what you're proposing here, but I think you're saying that you're only going to support range partitioning on integers or dates and that you plan to use the text type to store the integer or date values. FWIW, those don't seem like very good decisions

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-02-09 Thread Amit Gupta
Hi Emmanuel, We are considering to following approach: 1. metadata table pg_partitions is defined as follows: CATALOG(pg_partitions,2336) BKI_WITHOUT_OIDS { Oid partrelid; // partition table Oid Oid parentrelid; // Parent table Oid int4parttype; // Type

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-02-09 Thread Emmanuel Cecchet
Hi Amit, I will be traveling until next Tuesday and will have no access to email so don't be surprised if I don't follow up this week. The overall approach seems sound. The metadata table should help also for DDL to find out overlapping ranges or duplicate list entries. So far, I have not

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-02-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Amit Gupta amit.pc.gu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Emmanuel, We are considering to following approach: 1. metadata table pg_partitions is defined as follows: CATALOG(pg_partitions,2336) BKI_WITHOUT_OIDS { Oid partrelid; // partition table Oid Oid

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-01-27 Thread Amit Gupta
Hi Emmanuel, On 1/26/09, Emmanuel Cecchet m...@frogthinker.org wrote: Hi Amit, I overlooked the fact that you dropped composite partitions and subpartitions template from the proposal presented in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00413.php. Is it because this is too

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-01-25 Thread Emmanuel Cecchet
Hi Amit, I overlooked the fact that you dropped composite partitions and subpartitions template from the proposal presented in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00413.php. Is it because this is too hard to support? or you don't see any immediate need for it? Thanks,

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-01-23 Thread Amit Gupta
Hi Emmanuel, Please find my comments in-lined: On 1/23/09, Emmanuel Cecchet m...@frogthinker.org wrote: Amit, You might want to put this on the http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning wiki page. Sure. How does your timeline look like for this implementation? The

[HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-01-22 Thread Amit Gupta
Hi, We are implementing table partitioning feature to support - the attached commands. The syntax conforms to most of the suggestion mentioned in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-01/msg00413.php, barring the following: -- Specification of partition names is optional. System will

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-01-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Amit, Wow, thanks! As you probably know, we're already in freeze for 8.4. So this patch will need to go on the first commitfest for 8.5, in May or June. --Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Table Partitioning Feature

2009-01-22 Thread Emmanuel Cecchet
Amit, You might want to put this on the http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Table_partitioning wiki page. How does your timeline look like for this implementation? I would be happy to contribute C triggers to your implementation. From what I understood in