Re: Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history
Date
Msg-id 295702e4-d634-4a60-823c-9c7710bd3269@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history  (Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele.bartolini@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Extend pgbench partitioning to pgbench_history
List pgsql-hackers
Hello Gabriele,

I think the improvement makes sense (it's indeed a bit strange to not
partition the history table), and the patch looks good.

I did think about whether this should be optional in some way - that is,
separate from partitioning the accounts table, and users would have to
explicitly enable (or disable) it. But I don't think we need to do that.

The vast majority of users simply want to partition everything. And this
is just one way to partition the database anyway, it's our opinion on
how to do that, but there's many other options how we might partition
the tables, and we don't (and don't want too) have options for that.

The only case that I can think of where this might matter is when
running a benchmarks that will be compared to some earlier results
(executed using an older pgbench version). That will be affected by
this, but I don't think we make many promises about compatibility in
this regard ... it's probably better to always compare results only from
the same pgbench version, I guess.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Antonin Houska
Date:
Subject: Re: why there is not VACUUM FULL CONCURRENTLY?
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Add pg_basetype() function to obtain a DOMAIN base type