| From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands |
| Date: | 2026-06-26 13:47:06 |
| Message-ID: | CALT9ZEG8F_oTZEp7vpqJH6Y4hGuQ6jEusETk+=C4XciedS0G1w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Justin!
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 at 17:40, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for addressing the tablespace issue.
>
> One more thing -- merging non-contiguous tables is currently refused:
>
> ts=# CREATE TABLE a(t timestamptz) PARTITION BY RANGE (t);
> ts=# CREATE TABLE a_20260101 PARTITION OF a FOR VALUES FROM ('20260101')TO('20260102');
> ts=# CREATE TABLE a_20260126 PARTITION OF a FOR VALUES FROM ('20260126')TO('20260127');
> ts=# CREATE TABLE a_20260127 PARTITION OF a FOR VALUES FROM ('20260127')TO('20260128');
> ts=# CREATE TABLE a_20260128 PARTITION OF a FOR VALUES FROM ('20260128')TO('20260129');
>
> ts=# ALTER TABLE a MERGE PARTITIONS (a_20260101,a_20260126,a_20260127,a_20260128) INTO a_202601;
> ERROR: cannot merge partition "a_20260126" together with partition "a_20260101"
> DETAIL: The lower bound of partition "a_20260126" is not equal to the upper bound of partition "a_20260101".
> HINT: ALTER TABLE ... MERGE PARTITIONS requires the partition bounds to be adjacent.
>
> The goal seems to be to avoid overlapping partition constaints.
>
> If there's a default partition, that also avoids the possibility of
> needing to move *some* (but not all) tuples from it into the merged
> partition.
>
> I think there should be separate logic depending on the existance of a
> default partition:
>
> - The existing logic seems to correctly handle the case of a default
> partition, which is being merged (gap is allowed).
>
> - The case of a default partition which is not being merged is also
> handled: no gap is allowed. Actually, this case was probably the
> motivation behind checking that the partitions are adjacent.
>
> - If there's *no* default partition, then I think the check should be
> relaxed; it's sufficient to verify that the bounds of the merged
> partition do not overlap with any partition which is not being merged;
Thank you for reporting on this feature!
Yes, I think main motivation for not allowing a partition bounds gaps for
merge was the complication in case a DEFAULT partition exists.
Probably, this could be relaxed when there is no DEFAULT partition.
Regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hüseyin Demir | 2026-06-26 14:28:10 | Re: Add autovacuum_warning to surface concurrent vacuum collisions |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-06-26 13:40:57 | Re: 048_vacuum_horizon_floor.pl hangs due to wakeup lost inside LockBufferForCleanup |