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[1] 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. [1] 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
