Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Implement table partitioning.

I would find that perfectly acceptable as long as a caveat about the performance impact was included in the documentation. My intent with putting the data in the parent in pg_partman was solely to avoid data loss and I also included a function for monitoring if data went into the parent. That sort of function may not have real utility in core, but I think the intent of the DEFAULT location is a catchall "just in case" and not really intended as a permanent data store. If people did use it that way, and a warning was included about its cost when adding new partitions, then that's on the user for doing that.

I recall reading in the other thread about this that you're looking to make locking across the partition set less strict eventually. If you could make the scan and data move not block on anything except the partitions involved, I think the performance impact of scanning the default partition and moving the data wouldn't even be that bad in the end.

Keith