Re: [POC] hash partitioning

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(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: 2017-05-17 04:14:04
Message-ID: CAFjFpRerPpCurYWy5ue2NT1WmLOJ-+e78k5w5XpoVWCVD+CW7Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 5/15/17 23:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>> +1. We should throw an error and add a line in documentation that
>>>> collation should not be specified for hash partitioned table.
>
>>> Why is it even allowed in the parser then?
>
>> That grammar is common to all the partitioning strategies. It looks
>> like it's easy to handle collation for hash partitions in
>> transformation than in grammar. But, if we could handle it in grammar,
>> I don't have any objection to it.
>
> If you disallow something in the grammar, the error message is unlikely to
> be better than "syntax error". That's not very desirable.

Right +1.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-05-17 05:26:51 Fix refresh_option syntax of ALTER SUBSCRIPTION in document
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-05-17 04:08:17 Re: [POC] hash partitioning