Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896002E00E4; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:57:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50793-06; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:57:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from fetter.org (start.fetter.org [66.92.188.65]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143342E0073; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:57:11 -0400 (AST) Received: by fetter.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2424EFBCDB2; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:57:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:57:10 -0800 From: David Fetter To: Tom Lane Cc: PostgreSQL Docs , PostgreSQL Patches Subject: Re: Partition: use triggers instead of rules Message-ID: <20071128205710.GL24146@fetter.org> References: <20071128202615.GG24146@fetter.org> <21686.1196283184@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21686.1196283184@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/109 X-Sequence-Number: 4642 On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter writes: > > Best practices for partitioning so far have shown that TRIGGERs > > are better than RULEs for most cases. Please find attached a > > patch which reflects this. > > Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't > seem like a good idea. It does to me. I haven't found a case yet where rules worked even as well as triggers. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate