On 3/3/17 8:33 AM, amul sul wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu
>     It also has the advantage that it's easier to see how to add more
>     partitions. You just split all the ranges and (and migrate the
>     data...). There's even the possibility of having uneven partitions if
>     you have a data distribution skew -- which can happen even if you have
>     a good hash function. In a degenerate case you could have a partition
>     for a single hash of a particularly common value then a reasonable
>     number of partitions for the remaining hash ranges.
> Initially
> ​we
>  had
> ​to have ​
> somewhat similar thought to make a range of hash
> values for
> ​ ​
> each partition, using the same half-open interval syntax we use in general:


> So it's pretty
> ​ ​
> user-unfriendly.

This patch is marked as POC and after a read-through I agree that's
exactly what it is.  As such, I'm not sure it belongs in the last
commitfest.  Furthermore, there has not been any activity or a new patch
in a while and we are halfway through the CF.

Please post an explanation for the delay and a schedule for the new
patch.  If no patch or explanation is posted by 2017-03-17 AoE I will
mark this submission "Returned with Feedback".


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to