Re: On partitioning

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> > Yeah and also how would user specify the values, as an example
> > assume that table is partitioned on monthly_salary, so partition
> > definition would look:
> >
> > PARTITION BY LIST(monthly_salary)
> > (
> > PARTITION salary_less_than_thousand VALUES(300, 900),
> > PARTITION salary_less_than_two_thousand VALUES (500,1000,1500),
> > ...
> > )
> >
> > Now if user wants to define multi-column Partition based on
> > monthly_salary and annual_salary, how do we want him to
> > specify the values. Basically how to distinguish which values
> > belong to first column key and which one's belong to second
> > column key.
>
> I assume you just add some parentheses.
>
> PARTITION BY LIST (colA, colB) (PARTITION VALUES ((valA1, valB1),
> (valA2, valB2), (valA3, valB3))
>
> Multi-column list partitioning may or may not be worth implementing,
> but the syntax is not a real problem.
>

Yeah either this way or what Josh has suggested upthread, the main
point was that if at all we want to support multi-column list partitioning
then we need to have slightly different syntax, however I feel that we
can leave multi-column list partitioning for first version.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com