Re: Boolean partitions syntax

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: 2018-03-02 06:58:58
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
> expression.

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.


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 陈天舟 2018-03-02 07:04:51 Last archived timestamp/xid for Point-in-Time Recovery
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2018-03-02 06:52:00 psql tab completion for ALTER INDEX SET