Given the discussion starting at
https://postgr.es/m/cafjfprdbiqjzm8sg9+s0x8re-afhds6mflgguw0wvunlgrv...@mail.gmail.com
we don't have default-partition support with the hash partitioning
scheme. That seems a reasonable outcome, but I think we should have a
comment about it (I had to search the reason for this restriction in the
hash-partitioning patch set). How about the attached? Does anyone see
a reason to make this more verbose, and if so to what?
... unless somebody wants to argue that we should have the feature; if
so please share your patch.
Thanks
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>From f1f5ceb124b8662f63bebc6808bcf0472b579eaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:25:56 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Add comment on no default partition with hash partitioning
---
src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c b/src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c
index a9b2f8bacd..83c8048387 100644
--- a/src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c
+++ b/src/backend/parser/parse_utilcmd.c
@@ -3727,6 +3727,10 @@ transformPartitionBound(ParseState *pstate, Relation parent,
if (spec->is_default)
{
+ /*
+ * Hash partitioning does not support a default partition; there's no
+ * use case for it and it's likely to cause trouble for users.
+ */
if (strategy == PARTITION_STRATEGY_HASH)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TABLE_DEFINITION),
--
2.17.1
