Anton <anton200@gmail.com> writes: > I want ask about problem with partioned tables (it was discussed some > time ago, see below). Is it fixed somehow in 8.2.5 ? No. The patch you mention never was considered at all, since it consisted of a selective quote from Greenplum source code. It would not even compile in community Postgres, because it adds calls to half a dozen Greenplum routines that we've never seen. Not to mention that the base of the diff is Greenplum proprietary code, so the patch itself wouldn't even apply successfully. As to whether it would work if we had the full story ... well, not having the full story, I don't want to opine. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com> writes: > Sure - it's here: > http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches_hold/msg00381.html Luke, this is not a patch, and I'm getting pretty dang tired of seeing you refer to it as one. What this is is a very-selective extract from Greenplum proprietary code. If you'd like us to think it is a patch, you need to offer the source code to all the GP-specific functions that are called in the quoted additions. Hell, the diff is *against* GP-specific code --- it removes calls to functions that we've never seen, eg here: - /* Use constant expr if available. Will be at head of list. */ - if (CdbPathkeyEqualsConstant(pathkey)) This is not a patch, and your statements that it's only a minor porting matter to turn it into one are lie^H^H^Hnonsense. Please lift the skirts higher than the ankle region if you want us to get excited. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org