From: | Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning |
Date: | 2017-05-04 20:28:19 |
Message-ID: | CAOgcT0PFNFjCKbVRgUKjFfUrM1F9n4Mx9ncYye+ngLanZEZaBw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
While reviewing the code I was trying to explore more cases, and I here
comes an
open question to my mind:
should we allow the default partition table to be partitioned further?
If we allow it(as in the current case) then observe following case, where I
have defined a default partitioned which is further partitioned on a
different
column.
postgres=# CREATE TABLE test ( a int, b int, c int) PARTITION BY LIST (a);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# CREATE TABLE test_p1 PARTITION OF test FOR VALUES IN(4, 5, 6, 7,
8);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# CREATE TABLE test_pd PARTITION OF test DEFAULT PARTITION BY
LIST(b);
CREATE TABLE
postgres=# INSERT INTO test VALUES (20, 24, 12);
ERROR: no partition of relation "test_pd" found for row
DETAIL: Partition key of the failing row contains (b) = (24).
Note, that it does not allow inserting the tuple(20, 24, 12) because though
a=20
would fall in default partition i.e. test_pd, table test_pd itself is
further
partitioned and does not have any partition satisfying b=24.
Further if I define a default partition for table test_pd, the the tuple
gets inserted.
Doesn't this sound like the whole purpose of having DEFAULT partition on
test
table is defeated?
Any views?
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-05-04 20:29:38 | Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take) |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-05-04 20:23:33 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |