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

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRcoxbJ4_LwzMXg2+OiU0+GacXVCQewqqLRrhmNoG_7-kA@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  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.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.

+1. We should throw an error and add a line in documentation that
collation should not be specified for hash partitioned table.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] src/test/ssl/t/001_ssltests.pl should not tromp on file permissions
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Duplicate usage of tablespace location?