On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 14:26, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > How about extending the sentence about when the optimization is disabled > as follows: > > "If we find a Datum in a partition that's greater than one previously > already seen, then values could become out of order and we'd have to > disable the optimization. We'd also need to disable the optimization if > NULL values are interleaved with other Datum values, because the calling > code expect them to be present in the last partition." > > Further, extend the "For now..." sentence as: > > "For now, let's just keep it simple and just accept LIST partitioned table > without a DEFAULT partition where each partition only accepts a single > Datum or NULL. It's OK to always accept NULL partition in that case, > because PartitionBoundInfo lists it as the last partition."
I ended up rewording the entire thing and working on the header comment for the function too. I think previously it wasn't that well defined what "ordered" meant. I added a mention that we expect that NULLs, if possible must come in the last partition. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
mergeappend_to_append_conversion_v18.patch
Description: Binary data