Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ-8_pj=OTmF6+B9stM8Z5HBbrv6OvDO_Gp_1-hhO8G3A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range  (Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range  (Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for informing.
> PFA the updated patch.
> I have changed the numbering of enum PartitionRangeDatumKind since I
> have to include DEFAULT as well. If you have better ideas, let me
> know.

Why do we need to introduce PARTITION_RANGE_DATUM_DEFAULT at all?  It
seems to me that the handling of default range partitions ought to be
similar to the way a null-accepting list partition is handled -
namely, it wouldn't show up in the "datums" or "kind" array at all,
instead just showing up in PartitionBoundInfoData's default_index
field.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Page Scan Mode in Hash Index
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses