| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash Functions |
| Date: | 2017-05-15 19:26:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZtkZrTsWCGfPBN7rbF2TCoh_=+GMQD93Gxvh1wp7iQSg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-05-14 21:22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> but wanting a CHECK constraint that applies to only one partition
>> seems pretty reasonable (e.g. CHECK that records for older years are
>> all in the 'inactive' state, or whatever).
>
> On a hash-partitioned table?
No, probably not. But do we really want the rules for partitioned
tables to be different depending on the kind of partitioning in use?
> I'm not saying it can't work for any datatype, I just think it'd be a
> very bad idea to make it work for any non-trivial ones. The likelihood
> of reguarly breaking or preventing us from improving things seems high.
> I'm not sure that having a design where this most of the time works for
> some datatypes is a good one.
I think you might be engaging in undue pessimism here, but I suspect
we need to actually try doing the work before we know how it will turn
out.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-15 19:29:02 | Re: NOT NULL constraints on range partition key columns |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-05-15 19:25:35 | Re: proposal psql \gdesc |