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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
