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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY_t+vLeVLqt9yXrzKgxu9RFrGmwjH7z19Meazr8k5ajA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/05/12 10:42, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We need to add PARTITION_STRATEGY_HASH as well, we don't support NULL
>>> for hash also, right?
>>
>> I think it should.
>>
>> Actually, I think that not supporting nulls for range partitioning may
>> have been a fairly bad decision.
>
> I think the relevant discussion concluded [1] that way, because we
> couldn't decide which interface to provide for specifying where NULLs are
> placed or because we decided to think about it later.

Yeah, but I have a feeling that marking the columns NOT NULL is going
to make it really hard to support that in the future when we get the
syntax hammered out.  If it had only affected the partition
constraints that'd be different.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Get stuck when dropping a subscription duringsynchronizing table