On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:03:12AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Yeah, range and list partition definitions are very similar, but > hash partition definitions are a different kettle of fish. I don't > think we really need hash partitioning for anything right away - > it's pretty useless unless you've got, say, a way for the partitions > to be foreign tables living on remote servers -
There's a patch enabling exactly this feature in the queue for 9.5. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1386 > but we shouldn't pick a design that will make it really hard to add > later. Indeed not :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
