| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Boolean partitions syntax |
| Date: | 2018-02-02 22:00:24 |
| Message-ID: | 11929.1517608824@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> There might be other options, but one way to solve this would be to
> treat partition bounds as a general expression in the grammar and then
> check in post-parse analysis that it's a constant.
That's pretty much what I said upthread. What I basically don't like
about the current setup is that it's assuming that the bound item is
a bare literal. Even disregarding future-extension issues, that's bad
because it can't result in an error message smarter than "syntax error"
when someone tries the rather natural thing of writing a more complicated
expression.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-02-02 22:06:44 | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-02 21:58:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |