On 5/24/19 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes: >> On 5/24/19 9:33 AM, David Rowley wrote: >>> For it to have regressed it would have had to once have been better, >>> but where was that mentioned? The only thing I saw was >>> non-partitioned tables compared to partitioned tables, but you can't >>> really say it's a regression if you're comparing apples to oranges. > >> I have very successfully used multiple hundreds and even low thousands >> of partitions without running out of memory under the older inheritance >> based "partitioning", and declarative partitioning is supposed to be >> (and we have advertised it to be) better, not worse, isn't it? > > Have you done the exact thing described in the test case? I think > that's going to be quite unpleasantly memory-intensive in any version.
Ok, fair point. Will test and report back. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
