| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2017-04-20 06:05:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAFjFpRfaKSO4YZjVv7jkcMEMVgDcnqc4yhqVWhO5gczB5mW8eQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> BTW, I remain totally mystified as to what people think the semantics of
> partitioning ought to be. Child columns can have a different type from
> parent columns? Really? Why is this even under discussion? We don't
> allow that in old-school inheritance, and I cannot imagine a rational
> argument why partitioning should allow it.
>
No, we aren't doing that. We are discussing here how to represent
partition bounds of top level join and all the intermediate joins
between A, B and C which are partitioned tables with different
partition key types. We are not discussing the column types of
children, join or simple.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-04-20 06:45:27 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-20 06:02:07 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |