|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: Boolean partitions syntax|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 3/21/18 10:59 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/03/21 23:31, David Steele wrote:
>> Hi Amit,
>> 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.
> Btw, there is an 11dev open item recently added to the wiki that's related
> to this, but I think we might be able to deal with it independently of
> this proposal.
> * Partitions with bool partition keys *
If you want to bring this patch up to date and recast it as a bug fix
for the open issue I'll be happy to add it to the CF as a bug fix.
However, it seems to me the best plan might be to start with David's
patch  and make it play nice with old pg_dumps.
|Next Message||Bear Giles||2018-03-22 13:36:05||FYI: jOOQ blog|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2018-03-22 13:34:36||Re: constraint exclusion and nulls in IN (..) clause|