From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: no default hash partition |
Date: | 2019-08-07 16:55:59 |
Message-ID: | 20190807165559.GA29538@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Actually, it also says this (in the blurb for the PARTITION OF clause):
>
> > Creates the table as a <firstterm>partition</firstterm> of the specified
> > parent table. The table can be created either as a partition for specific
> > values using <literal>FOR VALUES</literal> or as a default partition
> > using <literal>DEFAULT</literal>. This option is not available for
> > hash-partitioned tables.
>
> > which I think is sufficient.
>
> Hm, that's rather confusingly worded IMO. Is the antecedent of "this
> option" just DEFAULT, or does it mean that you can't use FOR VALUES,
> or perchance it means that you can't use a PARTITION OF clause
> at all?
Uh, you're right, I hadn't noticed that. Not my text. I think this can
be fixed easily as in the attached. There are other options, but I like
this one the best.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
default-restrict.patch | text/x-diff | 1.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-08-07 16:58:10 | Re: Grouping isolationtester tests in the schedule |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-07 16:52:48 | Re: Grouping isolationtester tests in the schedule |