On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:24 -0500, Emmanuel Cecchet wrote:
> I think there is a misunderstanding between what Simon wants
> ('Anyway, I want data routing, as is the intention of this patch.') and
> what this patch is about. This patch is just supposed to load tuples in
> a hierarchy of tables as this is a recurrent use case in datawarehouse
> scenarios. It is not supposed to solve data routing in general
> (otherwise that would be integrated standard in COPY and not as an option).
I have not misunderstood. You wish to solve a very specific problem,
with very specific code. I've done that myself on occasion. My opinion
is that we should solve many of the partitioning problems with one set
of central, common code. If we do not do this we will need 3-4 times as
much code, most of which will be similar and yet must be exactly the
same. That alone is enough to block the patch's proposed method (IMHO).
> But it looks like it is a waste of everybody's time to continue this
> discussion further. Just move the patch to the rejected patches and
> let's wait for Itagaki's implementation.
The lack of discussion and design in this area has held back the last
few patches, by various authors; we should learn from that. Also,
working in isolation on narrow problems will not move us forwards as
fast as if we all work together on pieces of the whole vision for
partitioning. My piece was to think through how to link each of the
different aspects of partitioning and to propose a solution. Please join
with Itagaki to move this forwards - your further contributions will be
valuable.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com