On 2014-10-28 14:34:22 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:andres@2ndquadrant.com]
> > On 2014-10-27 06:29:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > As far as I understdood Robert's criticism it was more about the
> > internals, than about the userland representation. To me it's absolutely
> > clear that 'real partitioning' userland shouldn't be based on the
> > current hacks to allow it.
>
> For my understanding:
>
> By partitioning 'userland' representation, do you mean an implementation
> choice where a partition is literally an inheritance child of the partitioned
> table as registered in pg_inherits? Or something else?
Yes, I mean explicit usage of INHERITS.
In my opinion we can reuse (some of) the existing logic for INHERITS to
implement "proper" partitioning, but that should be an implementation
detail.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services