From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2017-06-06 09:46:04 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sGkcj2kGXerQeHdw3QZZkWzP-FE1bOAtw2aXuZ3woZhg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Consider an example using the partition hierarchy:
>
> root (a int, b char, c int) partition by range (a)
>
> -> level1 from (1) to (10) partition by list (b)
>
> -> level2 in ('a') parition by range (c)
>
> -> leaf from (1) to (10)
>
> Inserting (1, 'b', 1) into level1 will fail, because tuple can't be routed
> at level1 (no partition defined for b = 'b').
>
> Inserting (1, 'a', 10) into level1 will fail, because tuple can't be
> routed at level2 (no partition defined for c >= 10).
>
> Inserting (10, 'a', 1) into level1 will fail, because, although it was
> able to get through level1 and level2 into leaf, a = 10 falls out of
> level1's defined range. We don't check that 1 <= a < 10 before starting
> the tuple-routing.
>
> I wonder if we should... Since we don't allow BR triggers on partitioned
> tables, there should not be any harm in doing it just before calling
> ExecFindPartition(). Perhaps, topic for a new thread.
Yeah, correct.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-06-06 10:00:54 | Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-06-06 09:11:18 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |