| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2017-05-15 15:43:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZsEyMyYtEih=1GczxkgTtM9CC-KyZCALDEBMZA0oybkQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> IMHO, we could simply have a WARNING, and ignore collation, thoughts?
>
> Updated patches attached.
I think that WARNING is rarely a good compromise between ERROR and
nothing. I think we should just decide whether this is legal (and
then allow it without a WARNING) or not legal (and then ERROR).
Telling the user that it's allowed but we don't like it doesn't really
help much.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-05-15 15:43:58 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
| Previous Message | Sokolov Yura | 2017-05-15 15:40:12 | Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples |