Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
References: <55D3093C.5010800@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <20150826140158.3678.53116.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <563341AE.5010207@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmobUi=u1TswwFoi+TU_+XZvJhTrxG-JgZ0OrJmOe7cX87g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Message-ID: <564EE560.60106@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:18:24 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmobUi=u1TswwFoi+TU_+XZvJhTrxG-JgZ0OrJmOe7cX87g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2015/11/06 1:29, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> The DDL and catalogs part are not much different from what I had last
>> described though I took a few steps to simplify things. I dropped the
>> multi-level partitioning bit
> 
> Hmm, that doesn't sound good to me.  I think multi-level partitioning
> is a reasonably important use case.

I agree. I'm in the process of reformulating this proposal from the
syntax, catalog and DDL -centric perspective and will re-incorporate
multi-level partitioning notion into it. It was a mistake to drop it.

I am thinking of introducing an explicit notion of sub-partition key and
sub-partitions (of the top parent as far as syntactic notation is
concerned). I guess it would not be unreasonable to think that most
use-cases that multi-level partitioning is used for require at most 2
levels. It will enable us to use a more intuitive syntax and make
internals easier to manage.

Thanks,
Amit


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