Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning
References: <55D3093C.5010800@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoaCtvChjt=xky-P4anEyTWjnUm9xrgo6CpRaN6wPmM7mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <566E6C48.9080500@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoZZMfcf16YaHuhP1Vk=j8PDFeHCvfj+FJQd+eFhs+7P8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5678ACBC.8050809@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5698CE6D.3070907@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoY9C_XxbngCd9TtbEuwhu+4oHjeHt+QSzs-6bM=oY4f-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <56C55973.80309@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CADkLM=fz4SRiaLggFctOcJegpcjxaWPwCyi6YDwq9Wnceno7=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <56CD6598.4090302@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CADkLM=f1zyL-cV_LK8GpXv=iS_=VbHs8bernUMa+8yHtUXjebQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56DE2D4B.1040001@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CADkLM=cb7q4TSYQYX4EsMHVK0hjEnBJiA8+XMSSropk2CHwa_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <56DF74F0.7060404@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAPpHfdut34uqoY1vKgvBhsGZqhR6Nky=_Dxn0un57G_M2CvLTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+HiwqFFH10_ku6z_Ps=H7=pR5cWJk9Bdr9nE08+3F53yTEr9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdu0mGbt9T2Jx04OKJfJQ0zW55BFqmisinRYWd2OaowRWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaoZRqk2dr3xonta3o4omKuO4V4niVC2DKKo9VpdMc_zQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Message-ID: <56F0AC96.2010303@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:23:18 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoaoZRqk2dr3xonta3o4omKuO4V4niVC2DKKo9VpdMc_zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
        Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>,
        Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2016/03/22 4:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> So, the last patch on this thread was posted on February 17th, and the
> CF entry was marked Waiting on Author on March 2nd.  Even if we had a
> new patch in hand at this point, I don't think there's any real chance
> of being able to get this done for 9.6; there are too many things left
> to do here in terms of figuring out syntax and scope, and of course
> performance testing.  Moreover, when this goes in, it's going to open
> up lots of opportunities for follow-up optimizations that we surely do
> not have time to follow up on for 9.6.  And, as it is, the patch
> hasn't been updated in over a month and is clearly not in final form
> as it exists today.
> 
> Therefore, I have marked this Returned with Feedback.  I look forward
> to returning to this topic for 9.7, and I'm willing to step up to the
> plate and review this more aggressively at that time, with an eye
> toward committing it when we've got it in good shape.  But I don't
> think there's any way to proceed with it for 9.6.

OK. I agree with the decision.

Actually, I was just about to post a patch set today, but I figure it's
too late for that.  Anyway, I look forward to working on this for 9.7.

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