Re: parse partition strategy string in gram.y
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert@amazon.com>
Cc: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-10-24T16:13:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2022-Oct-24, Finnerty, Jim wrote: > Is there a reason why HASH partitioning does not currently support > range partition bounds, where the values in the partition bounds would > refer to the hashed value? Just lack of an implementation, I suppose. > The advantage of hash partition bounds is that they are not > domain-specific, as they are for ordinary RANGE partitions, but they > are more flexible than MODULUS/REMAINDER partition bounds. Well, modulus/remainder is what we have. If you have ideas for a different implementation, let's hear them. I suppose we would have to know about both the user interface and how it would internally, from two perspectives: how does tuple routing work (ie. how to match a tuple's values to a set of bound values), and how does partition pruning work (ie. how do partition bounds match a query's restriction clauses). -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Commits
-
meson: Split 'main' suite into 'regress' and 'isolation'
- a5ac3e76fe96 16.0 landed
-
Resolve partition strategy during early parsing
- 5fca91025e05 16.0 landed