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

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRd9qvfdu4H8J8tnTD6Hhcg0V2Ct2cumHMk-M6Ex_fEa5Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/17 23:45, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>> +1. We should throw an error and add a line in documentation that
>> collation should not be specified for hash partitioned table.
>
> Why is it even allowed in the parser then?

That grammar is common to all the partitioning strategies. It looks
like it's easy to handle collation for hash partitions in
transformation than in grammar. But, if we could handle it in grammar,
I don't have any objection to it.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] If subscription to foreign table valid ?
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [doc fix] PG10: wroing description onconnect_timeout when multiple hosts are specified