Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
References: <55D3093C.5010800@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CANP8+j+FqaepassKVpQtG_KU_XqFka8grZYULyT7yuYdgz++2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <55D53885.7070608@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20150820212700.GC8691@fetter.org>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>,
 Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Message-ID: <55D6BC88.4010101@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:52:08 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150820212700.GC8691@fetter.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2015-08-21 AM 06:27, David Fetter wrote:

>> By the last sentence, do you mean only UPDATEs to the partition key that
>> cause rows to jump partitions or simply any UPDATEs to the partition key?
> 
> I don't know what Simon had in mind, but it seems to me that we have
> the following in descending order of convenience to users, and I
> presume, descending order of difficulty of implementation:
> 
> 1.  Updates propagate transparently, moving rows between partitions if needed.
> 
> 2.  Updates fail only if the change to a partition key would cause the
> row to have to move to another partition.
> 
> 3.  All updates to the partition key fail.
> 

I was thinking I'd implement 2.

There was some discussion last year[1] about how 1 could be realized.

Thanks,
Amit

[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140829172216.GF10109@awork2.anarazel.de


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers