Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: >> Why can't hash partitions be stored in tables the same way as we do TOAST? >> That should take care of the naming problem.
> Hmm, yeah, something like that could be done, but every place where > you are currently allowed to refer to a partition by name would have > to be be changed to accept some other syntax for specifying the > partition. Uh ... toast tables have regular names, and can be specified in commands just like any other table. I don't see why these "auto" partition tables couldn't be handled the same way. > Beyond that, I think it's a bad idea to make hash partitions behave > completely differently from list and range partitions. I think the question is whether we are going to make a distinction between logical partitions (where the data division rule makes some sense to the user) and physical partitions (where it needn't). I think it might be perfectly reasonable for those to behave differently. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers