Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> 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 there is a full set, somehow? > > > I imagine there's good reasons this wasn't just done (for this or > > various other things), but couldn't we enforce it by just creating them > > all..? Sure would simplify a lot of things for users. Similairly for > > list partitions, I would think. > > Well, with lists Alvaro's point holds: you might know a priori that > some of the values are infrequent and don't deserve their own partition. > The thing about hash is that the entries should (in theory) get spread > out to all partitions pretty evenly, so it's hard to see why a user > would want to treat any partition differently from any other.
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 where I think it'd be good for things to go. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
