Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195AF215DC2
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:23:15 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <adaldeia@gmail.com>) id 1RpNbt-0006vP-AJ
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:23:14 +0000
Received: by yhoo21 with SMTP id o21so1355642yho.19
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:23:00 -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=/T3Md7hWEyl4p/8elDo+W3IocqO/O/jnR7gzdZCHZVE=;
	b=bzlr2yheNynt3+njv/RaiuThl0C80146G8jg2oKdTWgzuay+6No2fMPLmNifRZCFji
	pVL4J6jkWhccaH/DKONrbJnX2v7jidX7TAJJ5gKy1JUMQ9HnpoZtJjFea6A5axJ75nvS
	nsXAYKKQCO5yNZeP3joGjCRjt2VPXvHKgnk2E=
Received: by 10.236.124.172 with SMTP id x32mr12530583yhh.19.1327339379949;
	Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.50] ([177.35.194.89])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9sm22201231yhk.20.2012.01.23.09.22.53
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:22:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F1D976B.4040108@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:22:51 -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> <4F100AF1.1020808@gmail.com>
	<4F108094.4070401@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F108094.4070401@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201201/55
X-Sequence-Number: 46068

Em 13-01-2012 17:05, Josh Berkus escreveu:
> 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.
>

I'm sorry hear this. Table partitioning is a very good helper in a large 
number of performance issues. If there was a bounty to help anyone to 
make this, I would be a happy contributor. :)