| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | Jeff Cohen <jcohen(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Warren Turkal <turkal(at)google(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning grammar |
| Date: | 2008-01-15 15:36:17 |
| Message-ID: | 23769.1200411377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-15 15:46:32 | Re: SSL over Unix-domain sockets |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-01-15 15:04:46 | Re: Array behavior oddities |