| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 20180302065858.burd6ixcmegnzuxj@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| 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 |