| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(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: | 2017-05-12 02:20:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY_t+vLeVLqt9yXrzKgxu9RFrGmwjH7z19Meazr8k5ajA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2017/05/12 10:42, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> We need to add PARTITION_STRATEGY_HASH as well, we don't support NULL
>>> for hash also, right?
>>
>> I think it should.
>>
>> Actually, I think that not supporting nulls for range partitioning may
>> have been a fairly bad decision.
>
> I think the relevant discussion concluded [1] that way, because we
> couldn't decide which interface to provide for specifying where NULLs are
> placed or because we decided to think about it later.
Yeah, but I have a feeling that marking the columns NOT NULL is going
to make it really hard to support that in the future when we get the
syntax hammered out. If it had only affected the partition
constraints that'd be different.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-05-12 02:24:08 | Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-05-12 02:20:42 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |