| 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>, 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: | 2017-09-11 11:43:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZeaFRMADrdF=3E4eGKVEag8q082oP=-ceGEVNo2kO6HQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA.
>
> Given that we have default partition support now, I am wondering
> whether hash partitioned tables also should have default partitions.
> The way we have structured hash partitioning syntax, there can be
> "holes" in partitions. Default partition would help plug those holes.
Yeah, I was thinking about that, too. On the one hand, it seems like
it's solving the problem the wrong way: if you've set up hash
partitioning properly, you shouldn't have any holes. On the other
hand, supporting it probably wouldn't cost anything noticeable and
might make things seem more consistent. I'm not sure which way to
jump on this one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-11 11:49:11 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2017-09-11 11:29:18 | Re: mysql_fdw + PG10: unrecognized node type: 217 |