On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> I support building incrementally, but I don't see why we want to >>> change the catalog structure and then change it again. That seems >>> like it makes the project more work, not less. >> >> I agree with what you say. I thought you were saying that the >> implementation had to provide multi-partitioning from the get-go, not >> just the design. > > Well, I *hope* that's going to fall out naturally. If it doesn't, I > can live with that. But I hope it will. > >>> To me, it seems like there is a pretty obvious approach here: each >>> table can be either a plain table, or a partition root (which can look >>> just like an empty inheritance parent). Then multi-level partitioning >>> falls right out of that design without needing to do anything extra. >> >> Sounds reasonable. > > Cool. > >>> I think it is also worth getting the syntax right from the beginning. >> >> Yes, that's critical. We could implement the whole thing in gram.y and >> then have the unsupported cases throw errors; then it's easy to see that >> there are no grammar conflicts to deal with later. > > That's worth considering, too.
It seems that the consensus is to rework a bit more this patch. Returned with feedback then? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
