On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Maybe a shorter argument for hash partitioning is that not one but two
> different people proposed patches for it within months of the initial
> partitioning patch going in. When multiple people are thinking about
> implementing the same feature almost immediately after the
> prerequisite patches land, that's a good clue that it's a desirable
> feature. So I think we should try to solve the problems, rather than
> giving up.
>
Can we think of defining separate portable hash functions which can be
used for the purpose of hash partitioning?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
