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