On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah. That syntax has some big advantages, though. If we define that
>> partition as START ('2014-01-01') INCLUSIVE END ('2014-12-31')
>> INCLUSIVE, there's no way for the system to tell that the there's no
>> gap between the that ending bound and the starting bound of the 2015
>> partition, because the system has no domain-specific knowledge that
>> there is no daylight between 2014-12-31 and 2015-01-01. So if we
>> allow things to be specified that way, then people will use that
>> syntax and then complain when it doesn't perform quite as well as
>> START ('2014-01-01') END ('2015-01-01'). Maybe the difference isn't
>> material and maybe we don't care; what do you think?
> It was a fight I didn't expect to win, and even if we don't get
> [x,x]-expressible partitions, at least we're not in the Oracle
> context-waterfall, where the lower bound of your partition is determined by
> the upper bound of the NEXT partition.
I certainly agree that was a horrible design decision on Oracle's
part. It's really messy. If you drop a partition, it changes the
partition constraint for the adjacent partition. Then you want to add
the partition back, say, but you have to first check whether the
adjacent partition, whose legal range has been expanded, has any
values that are out of bounds. Which it can't, but you don't know
that, so you have to scan the whole partition. Aargh! Maybe this
somehow works out in their system - I'm not an Oracle expert - but I
think it's absolutely vital that we don't replicate it into
PostgreSQL. (I have some, ahem, first-hand knowledge of how that
>> (I really don't want to get tied up adding a system for adding and
>> subtracting one to and from arbitrary data types. Life is too short.
>> If that requires that users cope with a bit of cognitive dissidence,
>> well, it's not the first time something like that will have happened.
>> I have some cognitive dissidence about the fact that creat(2) has no
>> trailing "e" but truncate(2) does, and moreover the latter can be used
>> to make a file longer rather than shorter. But, hey, that's what you
>> get for choosing a career in computer science.)
> That noise your heard was the sound of my dream dying.
Well, I'm not sure we've exactly reached consensus here, and you're
making me feel like I just kicked a puppy. However, my goal here is
not to kill your dream but to converge on a committable patch as
quickly as possible. Adding increment/decrement operators to every
discrete(-ish) type we have is not the way to accomplish that. To the
contrary, that's just about guaranteed to make this patch take an
extra release cycle to finish. Now, that does not necessarily mean we
can't keep the INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE stuff -- after all, Amit has
already written it -- but then we have to live with the fact that
+1/-1 based optimizations and matching are not going to be there.
Whether it's still worth having fully-open and fully-closed ranges on
general principle -- and whether the lack of such optimizations
changes the calculus -- is what we are now debating.
More votes welcome. Right now I count 2 votes for keeping the
inclusive-exclusive stuff (Amit, Corey) and two for nuking it from
orbit (Robert, Francisco). I'm not going to put my foot down on this
point against a contrary consensus, so please chime in. Thanks.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: