Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XzqgX-0006Id-BI for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 17:40:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XzqgW-0008An-Mz for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 17:40:52 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XzqgU-0008Ag-Jg for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 17:40:50 +0000 Received: from 173-164-140-181-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.164.140.181] helo=fetter.org) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XzqgR-00043o-D9 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 17:40:48 +0000 Received: by fetter.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5562F6048B; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:40:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:40:16 -0800 From: David Fetter To: Robert Haas Cc: Amit Langote , Amit Kapila , Andres Freund , Alvaro Herrera , Bruce Momjian , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: On partitioning Message-ID: <20141213174016.GC29692@fetter.org> References: <015b01d00eab$56d37700$047a6500$@lab.ntt.co.jp> <002d01d01359$290cb4a0$7b261de0$@lab.ntt.co.jp> <007b01d015c6$373c21e0$a5b465a0$@lab.ntt.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:03:12AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Yeah, range and list partition definitions are very similar, but > hash partition definitions are a different kettle of fish. I don't > think we really need hash partitioning for anything right away - > it's pretty useless unless you've got, say, a way for the partitions > to be foreign tables living on remote servers - There's a patch enabling exactly this feature in the queue for 9.5. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1386 > but we shouldn't pick a design that will make it really hard to add > later. Indeed not :) 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers