|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: Re: Re: Boolean partitions syntax|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 3/6/18 9:44 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> Given the current state of this patch, with a number of senior
>>> developers disagreeing with the design, and the last CF being in
>>> progress, I think we should mark this as returned with feedback.
>> I see no problem with pursuing this in the next CF if the consensus is
>> that we should fix how partition bounds are parsed, instead of adopting
>> one of the patches to allow the Boolean literals to be accepted as
>> partition bounds.
> I'm inclined to mark this patch Returned with Feedback unless I hear
> opinions to the contrary.
Hearing no opinions to the contrary I have marked this entry Returned
with Feedback. Please resubmit when you have an updated patch.
|Next Message||David Steele||2018-03-21 14:51:04||Re: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take two|
|Previous Message||David Steele||2018-03-21 14:24:54||Re: Re: new function for tsquery creartion|