| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
| Date: | 2009-10-29 22:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1256854782.10769.187.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 00:10 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2009-10-29 at 11:15 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> > Range partitioning:
> > CREATE TABLE table_name ( columns )
> > PARTITION BY RANGE ( a_expr )
> > (
> > PARTITION name VALUES LESS THAN [(] const [)],
> > PARTITION name VALUES LESS THAN [(] MAXVALUE [)] -- overflow partition
> > );
>
> Maybe this needs to mention the actual operator name instead of LESS
> THAN, in case the operator is not named < or the user wants to use a
> different one.
I can't help but wonder if the PERIOD type might be better for
representing a partition range. It would make it easier to express and
enforce the constraint that no two partition ranges overlap ;)
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-10-29 22:41:26 | Re: \d+ for long view definitions? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-10-29 22:10:57 | Re: Syntax for partitioning |