On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:43:29AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA.
> >
> > Given that we have default partition support now, I am wondering
> > whether hash partitioned tables also should have default
> > partitions. The way we have structured hash partitioning syntax,
> > there can be "holes" in partitions. Default partition would help
> > plug those holes.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking about that, too. On the one hand, it seems
> like it's solving the problem the wrong way: if you've set up hash
> partitioning properly, you shouldn't have any holes.
Should we be pointing the gun away from people's feet by making hash
partitions that cover the space automagically when the partitioning
scheme[1] is specified? In other words, do we have a good reason to have
only some of the hash partitions so defined by default?
Best,
David.
[1] For now, that's just the modulus, but the PoC included specifying
hashing functions, so I assume other ways to specify the partitioning
scheme could eventually be proposed.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers