Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2012221131410.533489@pseudo обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation (Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
HEllo. >>> CREATE TABLE foo(a int) PARTITION BY LIST(a) CONFIGURATION (FOR VALUES >> IN >>> (1,2),(3,4) DEFAULT PARTITION foo_def); >> >> I would like to disagree with this syntactic approach because it would >> very specific to each partition method. IMHO the syntax should be as >> generic as possible. I'd suggest (probably again) a keyword/value list >> which would allow to be quite adaptable without inducing any pressure on >> the parser. >> > If I remember your proposal correctly it is something like > CREATE TABLE foo(...) PARTITION BY HASH AUTOMATIC (MODULUS 10); Yep, that would be the spirit. > It is still possible but there are some caveats: 1. We'll need to add > keyword MODULUS (and probably AUTOMATIC) to the parser's list. Why? We could accept anything in the list? i.e.: (ident =? value[, ident =? value]*) > I don't against this but as far as I've heard there is some > opposition among PG community against new keywords. Maybe I am wrong. the ident is a keyword that can be interpreted later on, not a "reserved keyword" from a parser perspective, which is the only real issue? The parser does not need to know about it, only the command interpreter which will have to interpret it. AUTOMATIC is a nice parser cue to introduce such a ident-value list. > 2. The existing syntax for declarative partitioning is different to your > proposal. Yep. I think that it was not so good a design choice from a language/extensibility perspective. > It is still not a big problem and your proposal makes query > shorter for several words. I'd just like to see some consensus on the > syntax. Now I must admit there are too many contradictions in opinions > which make progress slow. Also I think it is important to have a really > convenient syntaх. > 2a Maybe we all who participated in the thread can vote for some variant? > 2b Maybe the existing syntax for declarative partitioniong should be given > some priority as it is already committed into CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION OF > ... FOR VALUES IN.. etc. > I'd be happy if everyone will join some version of the proposed syntaх in > this thread and in the previous discussion [1]. If we have a variant with > more than one supporter, sure we can develop patch based on it. > Thank you very much > and Merry Christmas! > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/alpine.DEB.2.21.1907150711080.22273%40lancre > > -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: