Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZme6WW19_XOtz5_e3TBJhAJFWAZ9U4yEwJuFNUxGby2A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Declarative partitioning - another take (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > 0002-psql-and-pg_dump-support-for-partitioned-tables.patch + if (pset.sversion >= 90600 && tableinfo.relkind == 'P') Version check is redundant, right? +) PARTITION BY RANGE ((a+b)); +\d describe_range_key +Partitioned table "public.describe_range_key" + Column | Type | Modifiers +--------+---------+----------- + a | integer | + b | integer | +Partition Key: PARTITION BY RANGE (((a + b))) I understand that it's probably difficult not to end up with two sets of parentheses here, but can we avoid ending up with three sets? Also, I wonder if pg_get_partkeydef() should omit "PARTITION BY" and pg_dump can add that part back. Then this could say: Partition Key: RANGE ((a + b)) ...which seems a good deal more natural than what you have now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: