Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2016-11-01 18:18:00
Message-ID: CA+bJJbyZ9=teSoC=qBUjJEkXfFLe2Z6B-E_Nz1e7GkD3o+60Kg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert:

On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In defense of Corey's position, that's not so easy. First, \0 doesn't
> work; our strings can't include null bytes. Second, the minimum legal
> character depends on the collation in use. It's not so easy to figure
> out what the "next" string is, even though there necessarily must be
> one.

I'm aware of that, just wanted to point that it can be done on strings.

> I think we're all in agreement that half-open intervals should not
> only be allowed, but the default. The question is whether it's a good
> idea to also allow other possibilities.

In my experience, people continuously misuse them. I would specially
like to have them disallowed on timestamp columns ( and other
real-like data, including numeric ). But knowing they cannot do a few
things, and some others are easier with them is enough for allowing
them as an explicit non default for me.

Francisco Olarte.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-11-01 18:24:43 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Corey Huinker 2016-11-01 18:15:40 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take