On 3/3/17 8:33 AM, amul sul wrote: > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu > > It also has the advantage that it's easier to see how to add more > partitions. You just split all the ranges and (and migrate the > data...). There's even the possibility of having uneven partitions if > you have a data distribution skew -- which can happen even if you have > a good hash function. In a degenerate case you could have a partition > for a single hash of a particularly common value then a reasonable > number of partitions for the remaining hash ranges. > > Initially > we > had > to have > somewhat similar thought to make a range of hash > values for > > each partition, using the same half-open interval syntax we use in general: >
<...> > So it's pretty > > user-unfriendly. This patch is marked as POC and after a read-through I agree that's exactly what it is. As such, I'm not sure it belongs in the last commitfest. Furthermore, there has not been any activity or a new patch in a while and we are halfway through the CF. Please post an explanation for the delay and a schedule for the new patch. If no patch or explanation is posted by 2017-03-17 AoE I will mark this submission "Returned with Feedback". -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
