| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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: | 2017-05-12 17:09:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZX8r8o0ZYtwVksQ7uAuTbwjyHMA5+oVeNre71TJAOjJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> So, adding keycol IS NOT NULL (like we currently do for expressions) in
> the implicit partition constraint would be more future-proof than
> generating an actual catalogued NOT NULL constraint on the keycol? I now
> tend to think it would be better. Directly inserting into a range
> partition with a NULL value for a column currently generates a "null value
> in column \"%s\" violates not-null constraint" instead of perhaps more
> relevant "new row for relation \"%s\" violates partition constraint".
> That said, we *do* document the fact that a NOT NULL constraint is added
> on range key columns, but we might as well document instead that we don't
> currently support routing tuples with NULL values in the partition key
> through a range-partitioned table and so NULL values cause error.
>
> Can we still decide to do that instead?
I suggest you start a new thread on that topic.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-05-12 17:09:34 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-12 17:05:56 | Re: Hash Functions |