| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(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: | 2017-11-02 09:02:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaduTA_SmY4CwX9f-WubH46y46Vdk5eYNg-M8DoVtUbrw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Right now partition keys are immutable but we don't have much code
> written with that assumption. All the code usually keeps a lock on the
> parent till the time they use the information in the partition key. In
> a distant future, which may not exist, we may support ALTER TABLE ...
> PARTITION BY to change partition keys (albeit at huge cost of data
> movement). If we do that, we will have to remember this one-off
> instance of code which assumes that the partition keys are immutable.
I am pretty sure this is by no means the only piece of code which assumes that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ildus Kurbangaliev | 2017-11-02 09:41:01 | Re: Custom compression methods |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-02 09:01:54 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |