| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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: | 2017-09-14 16:56:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ-J8j+mO9YFcS+zcVyk6i7VtbP2qrwvrsgguUKpNiz1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> Should we be pointing the gun away from people's feet by making hash
> partitions that cover the space automagically when the partitioning
> scheme[1] is specified? In other words, do we have a good reason to have
> only some of the hash partitions so defined by default?
Sure, we can add some convenience syntax for that, but I'd like to get
the basic stuff working before doing that kind of polishing.
If nothing else, I assume Keith Fiske's pg_partman will provide a way
to magically DTRT about an hour after this goes in. But probably we
can do better in core easily enough.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-09-14 16:58:44 | Re: [JDBC] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2017-09-14 16:54:44 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |