On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:03:12AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, range and list partition definitions are very similar, but
> hash partition definitions are a different kettle of fish. I don't
> think we really need hash partitioning for anything right away -
> it's pretty useless unless you've got, say, a way for the partitions
> to be foreign tables living on remote servers -
There's a patch enabling exactly this feature in the queue for 9.5.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1386
> but we shouldn't pick a design that will make it really hard to add
> later.
Indeed not :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
