Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id 7387.1494994097@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
List pgsql-hackers
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 5/15/17 23:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> +1. We should throw an error and add a line in documentation that
>>> collation should not be specified for hash partitioned table.

>> Why is it even allowed in the parser then?

> That grammar is common to all the partitioning strategies. It looks
> like it's easy to handle collation for hash partitions in
> transformation than in grammar. But, if we could handle it in grammar,
> I don't have any objection to it.

If you disallow something in the grammar, the error message is unlikely to
be better than "syntax error".  That's not very desirable.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [doc fix] PG10: wroing description onconnect_timeout when multiple hosts are specified
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning