On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Rebased 0002 against this commit & renamed to 0001, PFA. > > Given that we have default partition support now, I am wondering > whether hash partitioned tables also should have default partitions. > The way we have structured hash partitioning syntax, there can be > "holes" in partitions. Default partition would help plug those holes.
Yeah, I was thinking about that, too. On the one hand, it seems like it's solving the problem the wrong way: if you've set up hash partitioning properly, you shouldn't have any holes. On the other hand, supporting it probably wouldn't cost anything noticeable and might make things seem more consistent. I'm not sure which way to jump on this one. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers