Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 5:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I can agree with that argument for range or list partitioning, where
>> the partitions have some semantic meaning to the user. I don't buy it
>> for hash partitioning. It was an implementation artifact to begin
>> with that a given row ended up in partition 3 not partition 11, so why
>> would users care which partition it ends up in after a dump/reload?
>> If they think there is a difference between the partitions, they need
>> education.
> I see your point. I think it's somewhat valid. However, I also think
> it muddies the definition of what pg_dump is allowed to do in a way
> that I do not like. I think there's a difference between the CTID or
> XMAX of a tuple changing and it ending up in a totally different
> partition. It feels like it makes the definition of correctness
> subjective: we do think that people care about range and list
> partitions as individual entities, so we'll put the rows back where
> they were and complain if we can't, but we don't think they think
> about hash partitions that way, so we will err on the side of making
> the dump restoration succeed. That's a level of guessing what the user
> meant that I think is uncomfortable.
I see your point too, and to me it's evidence for the position that
we should never have done hash partitioning in the first place.
It's precisely because you want to analyze it in the same terms
as range/list partitioning that we have these issues. Or we could
have built it on some other infrastructure than hash index opclasses
... but we didn't do that, and now we have a mess. I don't see a way
out other than relaxing the guarantees about how hash partitioning
works compared to the other kinds.
regards, tom lane