| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Date: | 2017-05-17 04:08:17 |
| Message-ID: | 7387.1494994097@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 5/15/17 23:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> +1. We should throw an error and add a line in documentation that
>>> collation should not be specified for hash partitioned table.
>> Why is it even allowed in the parser then?
> That grammar is common to all the partitioning strategies. It looks
> like it's easy to handle collation for hash partitions in
> transformation than in grammar. But, if we could handle it in grammar,
> I don't have any objection to it.
If you disallow something in the grammar, the error message is unlikely to
be better than "syntax error". That's not very desirable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-05-17 04:14:04 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-05-17 03:58:42 | Re: Re: [doc fix] PG10: wroing description on connect_timeout when multiple hosts are specified |