From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning by status?
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:05:56 -0800
Message-ID: <4F108094.4070401@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F100AF1.1020808@gmail.com>
References: <CANPAkgt9mGoF7SyA_n7jX3t6siLGPyA=d1tR2bPwKiAex3bDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4F0F2564.6030702@agliodbs.com>
<4F100AF1.1020808@gmail.com>
On 1/13/12 2:44 AM, alexandre - aldeia digital wrote:
>>
>> 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 ?
Nobody has been submitting patches.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
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: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Partitioning by status?
In-Reply-To: <4F108094.4070401@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox