On Tuesday, May 16, 2017, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really find this a very practical design.  If the table
> partitions are spread across different relfilenodes, then those
> relfilenodes have to have separate pg_class entries and separate
> indexes, and those indexes also need to have separate pg_class
> entries.  Otherwise, nothing works.  And if they do have separate
> pg_class entries, then the partitions have to have their own names,
> and likewise for their indexes, and a dump-and-reload has to preserve
> those names.  If it doesn't, and those objects get new system-assigned
> names after the dump-and-reload, then dump restoration can fail when a
> system-assigned name collides with an existing name that is first
> mentioned later in the dump.

Why can't hash partitions be stored in tables the same way as we do TOAST?
That should take care of the naming problem.

> If Java has portable hash functions, why can't we?

Java standardizes on a particular unicode encoding (utf-16). Are you
suggesting that we do the same? Or is there another solution that I am

   Jeff Davis

Reply via email to