public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Fabien COELHO <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Borisov <[email protected]>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <[email protected]>
Cc: Anastasia Lubennikova <[email protected]>
Cc: Rahila Syed <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Amul Sul <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 09:49:15 -0400 (AST)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2012230937140.533489@pseudo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALT9ZEF_aMgYoEg9JFYm9GUDwaa014wu7rtS_To8f82zt_rHaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2L28v_fmXvDF+UzMDCObgd7nuqSU=HAJPfw7w4TMx5HGv5ig@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAH2L28vRKPw+uf3Voiy6zy5QUghTPueErNTz_xgpkxEKnmfL1A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALT9ZEFBv05OhLMKO1Lbo_Zg9a0v+U9q9twe=t-dixfR45RmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALT9ZEHL0zgOfvx9ZrH0H4FiuVOKCRU6LcjGxB+1KRPLpAq9+w@mail.gmail.com>
<CALT9ZEHLvWsvfOpGLy8edEVGj-GYbkp03K676njhibatkqJmHA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2012221025000.533489@pseudo>
<CALT9ZEFe4Fj4mEnbpVmHQEXRC_K-DoicYvV-xHi0JZ3JTkc3Wg@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2012221131410.533489@pseudo>
<CALT9ZEFtDHhsPwqYSm_Hu51pVmnQh0C0A_raitJzo_kRoPhdPg@mail.gmail.com>
<alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2012221643050.533489@pseudo>
<CALT9ZEF_aMgYoEg9JFYm9GUDwaa014wu7rtS_To8f82zt_rHaw@mail.gmail.com>
> Fabien, do you consider it possible to change the syntax of declarative
> partitioning too?
My 0.02 €: What I think does not matter much, what committers think is the
way to pass something. However, I do not think that such an idea would
pass a committer:-)
> It is problematic as it is already committed but also is very tempting
> to have the same type of syntax both in automatic partitioning and in
> manual (PARTITION OF...)
I think that if a "common" syntax, for a given meaning of common, can be
thought of, and without breaking backward compatibility, then there may be
an argument to provide such a syntax, but I would not put too much energy
into that if I were you.
I see 3 cases:
- partition declaration but no actual table generated, the current
version.
- partition declaration with actual sub-tables generated, eg for hash
where it is pretty straightforward to know what would be needed, or for
a bounded range.
- partition declaration without generated table, but they are generated
on demand, when needed, for a range one may want weekly or monthly
without creating tables in advance, esp. if it is unbounded.
ISTM that the syntax should be clear and if possible homogeneous for all
three use cases, even if they are not implemented yet. It should also
allow easy extensibility, hence something without a strong syntax,
key/value pairs to be interpreted later.
--
Fabien.
view thread (38+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2012230937140.533489@pseudo>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox