| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning |
| Date: | 2016-03-09 17:48:29 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=e93X+iZw+YX2M4wjOOtSu1PN-Xre=hkK=s3WLFtFpJBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> I think we're converging on a good syntax, but I don't think the
> choice of nothingness to represent an open range is a good idea, both
> because it will probably create grammar conflicts now or later and
> also because it actually is sort of confusing and unintuitive to read
> given the rest of our syntax. I suggest using UNBOUNDED instead.
>
>
As much as it reminds me of the window syntax I loathe (ROWS BETWEEN
UNBOUNDED ....gah), I'm inclined to agree with Robert here.
It also probably helps for code forensics in the sense that it's easier to
text search for a something than a nothing.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2016-03-09 17:54:10 | enums and indexing |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-03-09 17:41:17 | Re: raw output from copy |