Subject: Re: Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: NikhilS <nikkhils@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-patches@postgresql.org, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <d3c4af540703292358s8ed731el7771ab14083aa610@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d3c4af540703292358s8ed731el7771ab14083aa610@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:00:11 +0000
Message-Id: <1206108011.4285.666.camel@ebony.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:28 +0530, NikhilS wrote:

> Please find attached the WIP version 1 of the auto partitioning patch.
> There was discussion on this a while back on -hackers at:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-03/msg00375.php
> 
> Please note that this patch tries to automate the activities that
> currently are carried out manually. It does nothing fancy beyond that
> for now. There were a lot of good suggestions, I have noted them down
> but for now I have tried to stick to the initial goal of automating
> existing steps for providing partitioning. 
> 
> Things that this patch does:

I think this patch is a reasonable first step and clearly written, but
not yet ready for application to Postgres in this commit fest.

I would say we need:

* Clear explanation of the new syntax, with examples of each permutation
so we can see how that would work. In light of recent discussions on
-hackers we need to take a view on whether we should go with Gavin's
suggested syntax or this syntax.

* There are some additional syntax items I don't understand the need
for. So these need to be explained.

* I would be against using the term PARTITION BY since it is already a
phrase that is part of the SQL Standard. Perhaps PARTITIONED BY?

* We need regression tests for any new command syntax

* No docs - that might be the same thing as the first item

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com 

  PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk