Re: Syntax for partitioning

From: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Syntax for partitioning
Date: 2009-11-18 04:52:57
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:

> this looks like a mistake:
> partinfo = (PartitionInfo *) malloc(ntups * sizeof(PartitionInfo));

Oops, it should be "p"alloc. Thanks.

> Maybe we should use something like
> when the user specifies the operator?

I think we could have reasonable restrictions to the operator
for future optimization. Is the VALUES OPERATOR syntax too freedom?

For the same reason, USING operator also might be too freedom.
RANGE (and maybe also LIST) partition keys should be sortable,
operator class name might be better to the option instead of
any operators. i.e.,
PARTITION BY RANGE ( foo [ USING operator ] )
should be:
PARTITION BY RANGE ( foo [ btree_ops_name ] )

If we do so, there will be no inconsistency in LESS THAN syntax
because btree_ops always have < operator.

ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2009-11-18 05:51:09 Re: Rejecting weak passwords
Previous Message Itagaki Takahiro 2009-11-18 04:36:17 Re: Syntax for partitioning