> As I understand it, partitioning will certainly lead to some significant > changes/enhancements to the planner. Do you think it is realistic to get > that for 8.5?
I don't think that waiting for our plans for a more robust partitioning implementation is a reason to put off improvements to the implementation we have. If Simon or Pavel or someone was going all-out on getting the new partitioning ready, that would be one thing. But to date, nobody has volunteered to work on it; we just know we need it. Of course, that completely leaves aside Tom's critique of the implementation, which sounds like it needs some work. Trying to fit the target table into a range partitioning mold would break with a lot of real partitionings; for example I have several client DBs which are partitioned active/inactive-by-date. What about simply eliminating joins between partitioned tables by checking which columns' constraints match exactly or are subsets? A lot of partitioned DBs partition everything by month, and joining two tables which were partitioned by month would be useful by itself. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
