Message-ID: <474EED87.2030408@commandprompt.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:49:11 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>,
	NikhilS <nikkhils@gmail.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
	"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Partition: use triggers instead of rules
References: <200711291642.lATGgI324578@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <200711291642.lATGgI324578@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>>> Rules are extremely slow in comparisons and not anywhere near as 
>>>> flexible. As I said up post yesterday... they work well in the basic 
>>>> partitioning configuration but anything else they are extremely deficient.
>>> I think that the above claim is exceedingly narrow-minded.
>> We are talking about partitioning. It is supposed to be narrow-minded.
> 
> Sure, but look at all the confusion we have had just on this list about
> it.  We had better state why triggers should be used in place of rules
> _for_ _partitioning_ or that confusion will continue.

Sure I have no problem with that.

Joshua D. Drake