On 2019-Aug-08, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > OK, but maybe also s/created as a default partition/created as the default
> > partition/ ? Writing "a" carries the pretty clear implication that there
> > can be more than one, and contradicting that a sen
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:22 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm, that's rather confusingly worded IMO. Is the antecedent of "this
> >> option" just DEFAULT, or does it mean that you can't use FOR VALUES,
> >> or perchance it means that you can'
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, that's rather confusingly worded IMO. Is the antecedent of "this
>> option" just DEFAULT, or does it mean that you can't use FOR VALUES,
>> or perchance it means that you can't use a PARTITION OF clause
>> at all?
> Uh, you're right
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Actually, it also says this (in the blurb for the PARTITION OF clause):
> Creates the table as a partition of the specified
> parent table. The table can be created either as a partition for
> specific
> values using FOR VALUES or as a default partition
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Actually, it also says this (in the blurb for the PARTITION OF clause):
>
> > Creates the table as a partition of the
> > specified
> > parent table. The table can be created either as a partition for
> > specific
> >
On 2019-Aug-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> That hash-partitioned tables can't have default partition is mentioned
> in the CREATE TABLE page:
>
> "If DEFAULT is specified, the table will be created as a default
> partition of the parent table. The parent can either be a list or
> range partitioned tab
On 2019-Aug-06, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Yeah, that's a fair argument, but giving the user a way to say that
> would address it. As in, "create me a list-partitioned table for these
> values, plus a default." Anyhow, I'm sure that I'm taking this beyond
> what we need to do right now, just sharing
On 2019-Aug-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> That hash-partitioned tables can't have default partition is mentioned
> in the CREATE TABLE page:
>
> "If DEFAULT is specified, the table will be created as a default
> partition of the parent table. The parent can either be a list or
> range partitioned tab
Greetings,
* Amit Langote (amitlangot...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:59 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > At Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:26:19 -0400, Robert Haas
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I think, as Amit says, that having an automatic partit
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:26 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Hmm. So given the point about it being hard to predict which hash
> > partitions would receive what values ... under what circumstances
> > would it be sensible to not create a full set of par
Horiguchi-san,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:59 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:26:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think, as Amit says, that having an automatic partition creation
> > feature for hash partitions (and maybe oth
At Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:26:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote in
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> I think, as Amit says, that having an automatic partition creation
> feature for hash partitions (and maybe other kinds, but certainly for
> hash) would be a useful thing to add to the sys
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 06:58:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-Aug-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Seems like "it's likely to cause trouble for users" is just going to
> >> beg the question "why?". Can we explain the hazard succinctly?
> >> Or point to a comment somewhere
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm. So given the point about it being hard to predict which hash
> partitions would receive what values ... under what circumstances
> would it be sensible to not create a full set of partitions? Should
> we just enforce that there is a full set,
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:02 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > On 2019-Aug-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Seems like "it's likely to cause trouble for users" is just going to
> > >> beg the question "why?". Can we explain the hazard
Hi Alvaro,
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:27 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Given the discussion starting at
> https://postgr.es/m/cafjfprdbiqjzm8sg9+s0x8re-afhds6mflgguw0wvunlgrv...@mail.gmail.com
> we don't have default-partition support with the hash partitioning
> scheme. That seems a reasonable out
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Hmm. So given the point about it being hard to predict which hash
> >> partitions would receive what values ... under what circumstances
> >> would it be sensible to not crea
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Hmm. So given the point about it being hard to predict which hash
>> partitions would receive what values ... under what circumstances
>> would it be sensible to not create a full set of partitions? Should
>> we just enforce that
Greetings,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-Aug-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Seems like "it's likely to cause trouble for users" is just going to
> >> beg the question "why?". Can we explain the hazard succinctly?
> >> Or point to a comment somewhere else t
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Aug-06, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems like "it's likely to cause trouble for users" is just going to
>> beg the question "why?". Can we explain the hazard succinctly?
>> Or point to a comment somewhere else that explains it?
> Right ... the "trouble" is just that if t
On 2019-Aug-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Given the discussion starting at
> > https://postgr.es/m/cafjfprdbiqjzm8sg9+s0x8re-afhds6mflgguw0wvunlgrv...@mail.gmail.com
> > we don't have default-partition support with the hash partitioning
> > scheme. That seems a reasonable outc
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Given the discussion starting at
> https://postgr.es/m/cafjfprdbiqjzm8sg9+s0x8re-afhds6mflgguw0wvunlgrv...@mail.gmail.com
> we don't have default-partition support with the hash partitioning
> scheme. That seems a reasonable outcome, but I think we should have a
> comment
22 matches
Mail list logo
