Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Given the discussion starting at
> https://postgr.es/m/cafjfprdbiqjzm8sg9+s0x8re-afhds6mflgguw0wvunlgrv...@mail.gmail.com
> we don't have default-partition support with the hash partitioning
> scheme. That seems a reasonable outcome, but I think we should have a
> comment about it (I had to search the reason for this restriction in the
> hash-partitioning patch set). How about the attached? Does anyone see
> a reason to make this more verbose, and if so to what?
Seems like "it's likely to cause trouble for users" is just going to
beg the question "why?". Can we explain the hazard succinctly?
Or point to a comment somewhere else that explains it?
regards, tom lane
