Re: Declarative partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | David Fetter |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Declarative partitioning |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20150818134323.GC18054@fetter.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Declarative partitioning (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Responses |
Re: Declarative partitioning
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:30:20PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi, > > I would like propose $SUBJECT for this development cycle. Attached is a > WIP patch that implements most if not all of what's described below. Some > yet unaddressed parts are mentioned below, too. I'll add this to the CF-SEP. Thanks for pushing this forward! We've needed this done for at least a decade. > 4. (yet unimplemented) Attach partition (from existing table) > > ALTER TABLE partitioned_table > ATTACH PARTITION partition_name > FOR VALUES values_spec > USING [TABLE] table_name; > > ALTER TABLE table_name > SET VALID PARTITION OF <parent>; > > The first of the above pair of commands would attach table_name as a (yet) > 'invalid' partition of partitioned_table (after confirming that it matches > the schema and does not overlap with other partitions per FOR VALUES > spec). It would also record the FOR VALUES part in the partition catalog > and set pg_class.relispartition to true for table_name. > > After the first command is done, the second command would take exclusive > lock on table_name, scan the table to check if it contains any values > outside the boundaries defined by FOR VALUES clause defined previously, > throw error if so, mark as valid partition of parent if not. One small change to make this part more efficient: 1. Take the access exclusive lock on table_name. 2. Check for a matching constraint on it. 3. If it's there, mark it as a valid partition. 4. If not, check for values outside the boundaries as above. Should the be a *valid* constraint? Perhaps that should be parameterized, as I'm not yet seeing a compelling argument either direction. I'm picturing something like: ALTER TABLE table_name SET VALID PARTITION OF <parent> [TRUST] where TRUST would mean that an existing constraint need not be VALID. > Does that make sense? Yep. > 5. Detach partition > > ALTER TABLE partitioned_table > DETACH PARTITION partition_name [USING table_name] > > This removes partition_name as partition of partitioned_table. The table > continues to exist with the same name or 'table_name', if specified. > pg_class.relispartition is set to false for the table, so it behaves like > a normal table. Could this take anything short of an access exclusive lock on the parent? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
pgsql-hackers by date: