Re: [HACKERS] [POC] hash partitioning

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Amit Langote
<Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> So, adding keycol IS NOT NULL (like we currently do for expressions) in
> the implicit partition constraint would be more future-proof than
> generating an actual catalogued NOT NULL constraint on the keycol?  I now
> tend to think it would be better.  Directly inserting into a range
> partition with a NULL value for a column currently generates a "null value
> in column \"%s\" violates not-null constraint" instead of perhaps more
> relevant "new row for relation \"%s\" violates partition constraint".
> That said, we *do* document the fact that a NOT NULL constraint is added
> on range key columns, but we might as well document instead that we don't
> currently support routing tuples with NULL values in the partition key
> through a range-partitioned table and so NULL values cause error.
>
> Can we still decide to do that instead?

I suggest you start a new thread on that topic.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company