On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Maybe a shorter argument for hash partitioning is that not one but two > different people proposed patches for it within months of the initial > partitioning patch going in. When multiple people are thinking about > implementing the same feature almost immediately after the > prerequisite patches land, that's a good clue that it's a desirable > feature. So I think we should try to solve the problems, rather than > giving up. >
Can we think of defining separate portable hash functions which can be used for the purpose of hash partitioning? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
