On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: >>> Sure. Mind you, I'm not proposing that the syntax I just mooted is >>> actually for the best. What I'm saying is that we need to talk about >>> it. >> >> Frankly, if we're going to require users to explicitly define each partition >> then I think the most appropriate API would be a function. Users will be >> writing code to create new partitions as needed, and it's generally easier >> to write code that calls a function as opposed to glomming a text string >> together and passing that to EXECUTE. > > I have very little idea what the API you're imagining would actually > look like from this description, but it sounds like a terrible idea. > We don't want to make this infinitely general. We need a *fast* way > to go from a value (or list of values, one per partitioning column) to > a partition OID, and the way to get there is not to call arbitrary > user code.
I think this was mentioned upthread, but I'll repeat it anyway since it seems to need repeating. More than fast, you want it analyzable (by the planner). Ie: it has to be easy to prove partition exclusion against a where clause. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
