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

From amul sul
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CAAJ_b97p5h-DsMQwZ5bTEPxOsQYAr_jJO9y0yac4fbGWyOBSVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Collation is only relevant for ordering, not equality.  Since hash
>>> opclasses provide only equality, not ordering, it's not relevant here.
>>> I'm not sure whether we should error out if it's specified or just
>>> silently ignore it.  Maybe an ERROR is a good idea?  But not sure.
>>>
>> IMHO, we could simply have a WARNING, and ignore collation, thoughts?
>>
>> Updated patches attached.
>
> I think that WARNING is rarely a good compromise between ERROR and
> nothing.  I think we should just decide whether this is legal (and
> then allow it without a WARNING) or not legal (and then ERROR).
> Telling the user that it's allowed but we don't like it doesn't really
> help much.

Understood, will throw an ERROR instead.

Thank you.

Regards,
Amul



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Event triggers + table partitioning cause server crashin current master