Hi Amit,
> Thanks Jeevan, that's right.
> Another way to look at this: the partition key (100, 0) would be
> insertable into r3, because the key satisfies its proposed exclusive
> upper bound (< (100, 200)). The same key is also insertable into r1,
> because it satisfies the latter's inclusive u
Hi Nitin,
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 5:20 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
> Thanks Ashutosh and Jeevan for replying.
>
> > "When creating a range partition, the lower bound specified with
> > FROM is an inclusive bound, whereas the upper bound specified with
> > TO is an exclusive bound. That is, the values
Thanks Ashutosh and Jeevan for replying.
> "When creating a range partition, the lower bound specified with
> FROM is an inclusive bound, whereas the upper bound specified with
> TO is an exclusive bound. That is, the values specified in the FROM
> list are valid values of the corresponding parti
Hi Nitin,
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:21 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not convinced with the following behaviour of RANGE Partitioning.
> Kindly let me know if this is expected behaviour or it should be changed.
>
> *Case-1*:
> postgres@68941=#create table r(a int, b int) partition by rang
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:21 PM Nitin Jadhav
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am not convinced with the following behaviour of RANGE Partitioning.
> Kindly let me know if this is expected behaviour or it should be changed.
>
> Case-1:
> postgres@68941=#create table r(a int, b int) partition by range(a,b);
> CR
