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
a given parent
table."
> How about the attached? Does anyone see
> a reason to make this more verbose, and if so to what?
If the outcome of this discussion is that we expand our internal
documentation of why there's no default hash partition, then should we
also expand the user documentation somehow?
Thanks,
Amit
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
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 about it (I had to search the rea
23 matches
Mail list logo
