Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning
Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>
From: Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Beena Emerson <memissemerson@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-05-17T09:29:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Jeevan Ladhe > > <jeevan.ladhe@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> I have fixed the crash in attached patch. > >> Also the patch needed bit of adjustments due to recent commit. > >> I have re-based the patch on latest commit. > > > > + bool has_default; /* Is there a default partition? > > Currently false > > + * for a range partitioned table */ > > + int default_index; /* Index of the default list > > partition. -1 for > > + * range partitioned tables */ > > > > We have has_null and null_index for list partitioning. There > null_index == -1 = has_null. May be Rahila and/or Jeevan just copied > that style. Probably we should change that as well? > > I agree with Ashutosh. I had given similar comment on earlier version of patch[1] <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0NUUQXWRXmeVKkYTDQvWoKLYRMiPbc89ua6i_gG8FPDmA%40mail.gmail.com>, and Rahila reverted with above reasoning, hence did not change the logic she introduced. Probably its a good idea to have a separate patch that removes has_null logic, in a separate thread. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOgcT0NUUQXWRXmeVKkYTDQvWoKLYRMiPbc89ua6i_gG8FPDmA%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Jeevan Ladhe.
Commits
-
Allow a partitioned table to have a default partition.
- 6f6b99d1335b 11.0 landed
-
Adjust min/max values when changing sequence type
- 60a0b2ec8943 10.0 cited
-
BRIN auto-summarization
- 7526e10224f0 10.0 cited