Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56E39FA419 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:37:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06616-03 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:37:33 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB6D9FA410 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:37:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l9R5bT72008492; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:37:29 -0400 (EDT) To: Anton cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1 In-reply-to: <8cac8dd0710262126t147f8974rb58a1e7c615e0725@mail.gmail.com> References: <46CEB522.9030907@enterprisedb.com> <8cac8dd0710262126t147f8974rb58a1e7c615e0725@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Anton message dated "Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:26:21 +0600" Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:37:29 -0400 Message-ID: <8491.1193463449@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200710/318 X-Sequence-Number: 27340 Anton writes: > I want ask about problem with partioned tables (it was discussed some > time ago, see below). Is it fixed somehow in 8.2.5 ? No. The patch you mention never was considered at all, since it consisted of a selective quote from Greenplum source code. It would not even compile in community Postgres, because it adds calls to half a dozen Greenplum routines that we've never seen. Not to mention that the base of the diff is Greenplum proprietary code, so the patch itself wouldn't even apply successfully. As to whether it would work if we had the full story ... well, not having the full story, I don't want to opine. regards, tom lane