Re: [HACKERS] Hash Functions

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-05-14 21:22:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> but wanting a CHECK constraint that applies to only one partition
>> seems pretty reasonable (e.g. CHECK that records for older years are
>> all in the 'inactive' state, or whatever).
>
> On a hash-partitioned table?

No, probably not.  But do we really want the rules for partitioned
tables to be different depending on the kind of partitioning in use?

> I'm not saying it can't work for any datatype, I just think it'd be a
> very bad idea to make it work for any non-trivial ones. The likelihood
> of reguarly breaking or preventing us from improving things seems high.
> I'm not sure that having a design where this most of the time works for
> some datatypes is a good one.

I think you might be engaging in undue pessimism here, but I suspect
we need to actually try doing the work before we know how it will turn
out.

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