Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6924564FC8B for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:12:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07015-10 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:12:22 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:02.02808 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qy0-f18.google.com (mail-qy0-f18.google.com [209.85.221.18]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6649164FC92 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:12:22 -0400 (AST) Received: by qyk11 with SMTP id 11so1163121qyk.19 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.214.25.3 with SMTP id 3mr6527936qay.337.1227776776903; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:06:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.215.39.5 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:06:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:36:16 +0530 From: "Nikhil Sontakke" To: "Robert Haas" Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 Cc: "Jaime Casanova" , "Emmanuel Cecchet" , PostgreSQL-development In-Reply-To: <603c8f070811262009v459d0701w151c16533d4ab947@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_26963_13141366.1227776776898" References: <3073cc9b0810220744y987173avd560a33fcb58ede5@mail.gmail.com> <490B5178.7070600@frogthinker.org> <3073cc9b0811052047o4ebe24b4vd0ab24fd3095d342@mail.gmail.com> <3073cc9b0811261335q5e35d336i33faa17eede7d417@mail.gmail.com> <603c8f070811261352ta6da0b8xcbb8aaf87f050e6e@mail.gmail.com> <3073cc9b0811261613l18e5283ft448ea74fed414dd@mail.gmail.com> <603c8f070811262009v459d0701w151c16533d4ab947@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.411 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200811/1801 X-Sequence-Number: 128513 ------=_Part_26963_13141366.1227776776898 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi, > i review it on nov 6, and there were open questions by me and by > > Emmanuel none of those has been answered: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg00362.php > > Hmm, there's only one actual question in that email, which is a > request for ideas about PL/pgsql vs. C. I suspect you didn't get any > responses because the rest of the email seems to indicate that the > patch is not very mature at this point: for example, being able to > handle updates that move rows between partitions would seem to me to > be an essential feature for a project of this type, even though there > are many practical scenarios were it's unimportant. Likewise, being > able to repartition sounds important. > > With respect to the specific question about PL/pgsql vs C, I suspect > it's very unlikely that any patch of this type that relies on PL/pgsql > being loaded would be accepted into core. However, it's possible that > a useful contrib module or pgfoundry project could be spawned on that > basis, and that might be a good place to start. > > I think having a useful toolkit, or a core language feature, that > supports table partitioning would be awesome and would find very broad > application... but it sounds like there is quite a bit of work left > to be done to get there. > This patch does introduce some basic syntax to help create partitions. The status has always being WIP, because what has not happened is that we have not had consensus on whether this is a logical first baby step ahead with partitioning. I haven't seen core members commenting on whether trying to aggregate the current set of manual operations together via this approach is worth spending further efforts, to get it into commitable shape. To summarize, the community should decide if this is indeed the first step ahead. Regards, Nikhils -- http://www.enterprisedb.com ------=_Part_26963_13141366.1227776776898 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi,
 i review it on nov 6, and there were open questions by me and by
> Emmanuel none of those has been answered:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg00362.php

Hmm, there's only one actual question in that email, which is a
request for ideas about PL/pgsql vs. C.  I suspect you didn't get any
responses because the rest of the email seems to indicate that the
patch is not very mature at this point: for example, being able to
handle updates that move rows between partitions would seem to me to
be an essential feature for a project of this type, even though there
are many practical scenarios were it's unimportant.  Likewise, being
able to repartition sounds important.

With respect to the specific question about PL/pgsql vs C, I suspect
it's very unlikely that any patch of this type that relies on PL/pgsql
being loaded would be accepted into core.  However, it's possible that
a useful contrib module or pgfoundry project could be spawned on that
basis, and that might be a good place to start.

I think having a useful toolkit, or a core language feature, that
supports table partitioning would be awesome and would find very broad
application...  but it sounds like there is quite a bit of work left
to be done to get there.

This patch does introduce some basic syntax to help create partitions.

The status has always being WIP, because what has not happened is that we have not had consensus on whether this is a logical first baby step ahead with partitioning. I haven't seen core members commenting on whether trying to aggregate the current set of manual operations together via this approach is worth spending further efforts, to get it into commitable shape.

To summarize, the community should decide if this is indeed the first step ahead. 

Regards,
Nikhils
--
http://www.enterprisedb.com
------=_Part_26963_13141366.1227776776898--