Re: Declarative partitioning grammar - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Declarative partitioning grammar
Date
Msg-id 23769.1200411377@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Declarative partitioning grammar  (Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Responses Re: Declarative partitioning grammar
Re: Declarative partitioning grammar
List pgsql-hackers
Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch> writes:
> Jeff Cohen wrote:
>> If you don't define a "default" partition to handle outliers,  the 
>> insert should fail with an error.

> IMO, you should always have a "default" partition, then, so as not to 
> violate the constraints (by rejecting tuples which are correct according 
> to the constraints).

I don't agree with that at all.  I can imagine plenty of situations
where a tuple falling outside the range of available partitions *should*
be treated as an error.  For instance, consider timestamped observations
--- data in the future is certainly bogus, and data further back than
you want to deal with must be an entry error as well.

I agree that there needs to be a way to have a "default" partition,
but there needs to be a way to not have one, too.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Array behavior oddities
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets