From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
Date: | 2009-11-17 19:33:08 |
Message-ID: | 4B02FA74.8090607@cs.helsinki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I'm reviewing your patch. The patch applies without problems and the
feature works as advertised. I have yet to look at the code in detail,
but it looks sane and seems to work. However, this looks like a mistake:
partinfo = (PartitionInfo *) malloc(ntups * sizeof(PartitionInfo));
or am I missing something?
The syntax itself seems a bit weird in some cases. Say you have:
PARTITION BY RANGE ( foo USING > )
(
PARTITION bar VALUES LESS THAN 0
);
which translates to CHECK (bar > 0). That doesn't sound at all like
LESS THAN to me. This syntax seems to be the same Oracle uses, and I
think it's nice for the general case, but I think the reversed operator
weirdness is a bit too much. Maybe we should use something like
PARTITION bar VALUES OPERATOR 0
when the user specifies the operator?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-11-17 19:46:01 | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-17 19:33:07 | Re: actualised funcs typmod patch |