On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:43:29AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
Should we be pointing the gun away from people's feet by making hash partitions that cover the space automagically when the partitioning scheme is specified? In other words, do we have a good reason to have only some of the hash partitions so defined by default? Best, David.  For now, that's just the modulus, but the PoC included specifying hashing functions, so I assume other ways to specify the partitioning scheme could eventually be proposed. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers