On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Amit Langote
<langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/05/12 11:20, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Amit Langote
>> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> On 2017/05/12 10:42, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> We need to add PARTITION_STRATEGY_HASH as well, we don't support NULL
>>>>> for hash also, right?
>>>> I think it should.
>>>> Actually, I think that not supporting nulls for range partitioning may
>>>> have been a fairly bad decision.
>>> I think the relevant discussion concluded [1] that way, because we
>>> couldn't decide which interface to provide for specifying where NULLs are
>>> placed or because we decided to think about it later.
>> Yeah, but I have a feeling that marking the columns NOT NULL is going
>> to make it really hard to support that in the future when we get the
>> syntax hammered out.  If it had only affected the partition
>> constraints that'd be different.
> So, adding keycol IS NOT NULL (like we currently do for expressions) in
> the implicit partition constraint would be more future-proof than
> generating an actual catalogued NOT NULL constraint on the keycol?  I now
> tend to think it would be better.  Directly inserting into a range
> partition with a NULL value for a column currently generates a "null value
> in column \"%s\" violates not-null constraint" instead of perhaps more
> relevant "new row for relation \"%s\" violates partition constraint".
> That said, we *do* document the fact that a NOT NULL constraint is added
> on range key columns, but we might as well document instead that we don't
> currently support routing tuples with NULL values in the partition key
> through a range-partitioned table and so NULL values cause error.

in get_partition_for_tuple() we have
        if (key->strategy == PARTITION_STRATEGY_RANGE)
            /* Disallow nulls in the range partition key of the tuple */
            for (i = 0; i < key->partnatts; i++)
                if (isnull[i])
                        errmsg("range partition key of row contains null")));

Instead of throwing an error here, we should probably return -1 and
let the error be ""no partition of relation \"%s\" found for row",
which is the real error, not having a partition which can accept NULL.
If in future we decide to support NULL values in partition keys, we
need to just remove above code from get_partition_for_tuple() and
everything will work as is. I am assuming that we don't add any
implicit/explicit NOT NULL constraint right now.

Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

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

Reply via email to