On 5/24/19 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>> On 5/24/19 9:33 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>>> For it to have regressed it would have had to once have been better,
>>> but where was that mentioned? The only thing I saw was
>>> non-partitioned tables compared to partitioned tables, but you can't
>>> really say it's a regression if you're comparing apples to oranges.
>
>> I have very successfully used multiple hundreds and even low thousands
>> of partitions without running out of memory under the older inheritance
>> based "partitioning", and declarative partitioning is supposed to be
>> (and we have advertised it to be) better, not worse, isn't it?
>
> Have you done the exact thing described in the test case? I think
> that's going to be quite unpleasantly memory-intensive in any version.
Ok, fair point. Will test and report back.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development