Re: Declarative partitioning grammar
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
Cc: Jeff Cohen <jcohen@greenplum.com>, Warren Turkal <turkal@google.com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>, Gavin Sherry <swm@alcove.com.au>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2008-01-15T15:36:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch> writes: > Jeff Cohen wrote: >> If you don't define a "default" partition to handle outliers, the >> insert should fail with an error. > IMO, you should always have a "default" partition, then, so as not to > violate the constraints (by rejecting tuples which are correct according > to the constraints). I don't agree with that at all. I can imagine plenty of situations where a tuple falling outside the range of available partitions *should* be treated as an error. For instance, consider timestamped observations --- data in the future is certainly bogus, and data further back than you want to deal with must be an entry error as well. I agree that there needs to be a way to have a "default" partition, but there needs to be a way to not have one, too. regards, tom lane