Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoYzHhc28h9KXyHr1=Q0hK3BKvACFZmmZ3CRX4O5TKnAHw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hash partitioning will partition the data based on the hash value of the
> partition key. Does that require collation? Should we throw an error/warning if
> collation is specified in PARTITION BY clause?

Collation is only relevant for ordering, not equality.  Since hash
opclasses provide only equality, not ordering, it's not relevant here.
I'm not sure whether we should error out if it's specified or just
silently ignore it.  Maybe an ERROR is a good idea?  But not sure.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Remi Colinet
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] [PATCH v2] Progress command to monitor progression of long runningSQL queries
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()