Hi,
I tend to agree with Robert that partitioning should continue using
inheritance based implementation. In addition to his point about reinventing
things it could be pointed out that there are discussions/proposals elsewhere
about building foreign table inheritance capability; having partitioning use
the same general infrastructure would pave a way for including sharding
features more easily in future (perhaps sooner).
Maybe I am missing something; but isn't it a case that making partitions a
physical implementation detail would make it difficult to support individual
partitions be on different servers (sharding basically)? Moreover, recent FDW
development seems to be headed in direction of substantial core support for
foreign objects/tables; it seems worthwhile for partitioning design to assume
a course so that future sharding feature developers can leverage both. Perhaps
I am just speculating here but I thought of adding this one point to the
discussion.
Having said that, it can also be seen that the subset of inheritance
infrastructure that constitutes partitioning support machinery would have to
be changed considerably if we are now onto partitioning 2.0 here.
--
Amit