Re: no default hash partition - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: no default hash partition
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqHVGoZx=LOdwMdhARn7L7-0xcYswhyW-s8cFvnqS==ctA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: no default hash partition  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: no default hash partition  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm, that's rather confusingly worded IMO.  Is the antecedent of "this
> >> option" just DEFAULT, or does it mean that you can't use FOR VALUES,
> >> or perchance it means that you can't use a PARTITION OF clause
> >> at all?
>
> > Uh, you're right, I hadn't noticed that.  Not my text.  I think this can
> > be fixed easily as in the attached.  There are other options, but I like
> > this one the best.
>
> OK, but maybe also s/created as a default partition/created as the default
> partition/ ?  Writing "a" carries the pretty clear implication that there
> can be more than one, and contradicting that a sentence later doesn't
> improve it.

+1.  Maybe also remove the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, that
is, this one:

There can be only one default partition for a given parent table.

Regards,
Amit



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON path: collation for comparisons, minor typos in docs
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c