Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150EE2EE4E1
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:44:17 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <adaldeia@gmail.com>) id 1RlecL-0006Nz-A1
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:44:17 +0000
Received: by yhnn56 with SMTP id n56so163053yhn.19
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:44:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=AoyCHcxNd9QSyV9kvrk0XDAuh7TLsUns6PDgwYBCF3Y=;
	b=ZBCbVPQ2avMNIWsIgB4BWqKuoxj27q23wNlEYTlHPMaBtFBT9xSA7+nw4e687zl6bp
	/4B+JIDTxeWtNHJKv00j4zXlxPavMn299Hc372dMW/Od4NFiSy+3OKuFLC1DMyb0w0nq
	9b+XWTapcQzQSFxdw81UVPES60hWGNeV9JfzI=
Received: by 10.236.77.232 with SMTP id d68mr355154yhe.98.1326451444948;
	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.50] ([187.23.11.84])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d3sm10605831anm.11.2012.01.13.02.44.03
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F100AF1.1020808@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:44:01 -0200
From: alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning by status?
References: 
 <CANPAkgt9mGoF7SyA_n7jX3t6siLGPyA=d1tR2bPwKiAex3bDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F0F2564.6030702@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F0F2564.6030702@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201201/40
X-Sequence-Number: 46053

>
> Also, (2) only really works if you're going to obsolesce (remove)
> archive records after a certain period of time.  Otherwise the
> sub-partitioning hurts performance.
>

Is there any moves to include the "easy" table partitioning in the 9.2 
version ?