Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Langote
Тема Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning
Дата
Msg-id ddc61438-ef81-2a60-8c31-145e3ddd1701@lab.ntt.co.jp
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On 2017/05/19 1:09, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:07 PM, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would suggest "non-zero positive", since that's what we are using in
>>> the documentation.
>>>
>>
>> Understood, Fixed in the attached version.
> 
> Why non-zero positive?  We do support zero for the remainder right?

Using "non-negative integers" (for remainders) was suggested upthread.

Thanks,
Amit

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] transition table behavior with inheritance appearsbroken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take)
Следующее
От: Masahiko Sawada
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] Multiple table synchronizations are processed serially