Re: Declarative partitioning - another take

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com>
Cc: Venkata B Nagothi <nag1010(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Date: 2017-01-06 07:56:47
Message-ID: d7b21efd-3db2-b4df-62b8-fe732a5030cb@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hi Keith,

On 2017/01/06 2:16, Keith Fiske wrote:
> Could we get some clarification on the partition_bound_spec portion of the
> PARTITION OF clause? Just doing some testing it seems it's inclusive of the
> FROM value but exclusive of the TO value. I don't see mention of this in
> the docs as of commit 18fc5192a631441a73e6a3b911ecb14765140389 yesterday.
> It does mention that the values aren't allowed to overlap, but looking at
> the schema below, without the clarification of which side is
> inclusive/exclusive it seems confusing because 2016-08-01 is in both. Even
> the child table does not clarify this. Not sure if there's a way to do this
> in the \d+ display which would be ideal, but it should at least be
> mentioned in the docs.

I agree that needs highlighting. I'm planning to write a doc patch for
that (among other documentation improvements).

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ideriha, Takeshi 2017-01-06 09:10:29 Re: [WIP] RE: DECLARE STATEMENT setting up a connection in ECPG
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2017-01-06 06:33:15 Re: Group clear xid can leak semaphore count