| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2017-05-10 16:43:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYzHhc28h9KXyHr1=Q0hK3BKvACFZmmZ3CRX4O5TKnAHw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Hash partitioning will partition the data based on the hash value of the
> partition key. Does that require collation? Should we throw an error/warning if
> collation is specified in PARTITION BY clause?
Collation is only relevant for ordering, not equality. Since hash
opclasses provide only equality, not ordering, it's not relevant here.
I'm not sure whether we should error out if it's specified or just
silently ignore it. Maybe an ERROR is a good idea? But not sure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-10 17:13:59 | Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn() |
| Previous Message | Remi Colinet | 2017-05-10 16:40:31 | [PATCH v2] Progress command to monitor progression of long running SQL queries |