On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:36:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Markus Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> If you don't define a "default" partition to handle outliers, the > >> insert should fail with an error. > > > IMO, you should always have a "default" partition, then, so as not to > > violate the constraints (by rejecting tuples which are correct according > > to the constraints). > > I don't agree with that at all. I can imagine plenty of situations > where a tuple falling outside the range of available partitions *should* > be treated as an error. For instance, consider timestamped observations > --- data in the future is certainly bogus, and data further back than > you want to deal with must be an entry error as well. > > I agree that there needs to be a way to have a "default" partition, > but there needs to be a way to not have one, too.
Jeff and I discussed this and we came to the same conclusion. We will propose grammar for handling it. Many users we talk to would fall into the class of people who would want an error if the data fell outside the defined partitions. Thanks, Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
