| From: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2017-05-16 04:33:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAAJ_b97p5h-DsMQwZ5bTEPxOsQYAr_jJO9y0yac4fbGWyOBSVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
Understood, will throw an ERROR instead.
Thank you.
Regards,
Amul
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-05-16 04:37:02 | Re: Event triggers + table partitioning cause server crash in current master |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2017-05-16 04:19:01 | Re: CTE inlining |