| From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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: | 2017-09-14 17:07:11 |
| Message-ID: | ba5ee631-18eb-cf78-e6f5-4060e988120e@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/14/2017 12:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> Should we be pointing the gun away from people's feet by making hash
>> partitions that cover the space automagically when the partitioning
>> scheme[1] is specified? In other words, do we have a good reason to have
>> only some of the hash partitions so defined by default?
>
> Sure, we can add some convenience syntax for that, but I'd like to get
> the basic stuff working before doing that kind of polishing.
>
> If nothing else, I assume Keith Fiske's pg_partman will provide a way
> to magically DTRT about an hour after this goes in. But probably we
> can do better in core easily enough.
>
Yeah, it would be nice to have a syntax like
) PARTITION BY HASH (col) WITH (AUTO_CREATE = 64);
But then there also needs to be a way to create the 64 associated
indexes too for everything to be easy.
Best regards,
Jesper
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-09-14 17:22:06 | Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-09-14 16:59:46 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition b |