Hi, On 2017-05-14 21:22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > but wanting a CHECK constraint that applies to only one partition > seems pretty reasonable (e.g. CHECK that records for older years are > all in the 'inactive' state, or whatever).
On a hash-partitioned table? > Now that's not to say that we shouldn't have a > reload-through-the-top-parent switch; actually, I think that's a good > idea. I just don't believe that it can ever be a complete substitute > for portable hash functions. I think almost everybody here agrees > that it isn't necessary to have hash functions that are 100% portable, > e.g. to VAX. But it would be nice IMHO if you could use an integer > column as the partitioning key and have that be portable between Intel > and POWER. I'm not saying it can't work for any datatype, I just think it'd be a very bad idea to make it work for any non-trivial ones. The likelihood of reguarly breaking or preventing us from improving things seems high. I'm not sure that having a design where this most of the time works for some datatypes is a good one. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
