Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:38:39PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I realize there hasn't been much progress on this thread, but I wanted
> > > > to chime in to say I think our current partitioning implementation is
> > > > too heavy administratively, error-prone, and performance-heavy.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I think there was lots of progress; there's lots of
> > > useful feedback from the initial design proposal I posted. I am a bit
> > > sad to admit that I'm not working on it at the moment as I had
> > > originally planned, though, because other priorities slipped in and I am
> > > not able to work on this for a while. Therefore if someone else wants
> > > to work on this topic, be my guest -- otherwise I hope to get on it in a
> > > few months.
> >
> > Oh, I just meant code progress --- I agree the discussion was fruitful.
>
> FWIW, I think Robert's criticism regarding not basing this on inheritance
> scheme was not responded to.
It was responded to by ignoring it. I didn't see anybody else
supporting the idea that inheritance is in any way a sane thing to base
partitioning on. Sure, we have accumulated lots of kludges over the
years to cope with the fact that, really, it doesn't work very well. So
what. We can keep them, I don't care.
Anyway as I said above, I'm not particularly interested in any more
discussion on this topic for the time being, since I don't have time to
work on this patch. If anybody wants to continue discussing to improve
the design some more, and even implement it or parts of it, that's fine
with me -- but please expect me not to answer.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services