Re: Multi column range partition table

On 6 July 2017 at 21:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> However, this is also an incompatible syntax change, and any attempt
>> to support both the old and new syntaxes is likely to be messy, so we
>> really need to get consensus on whether this is the right thing to do,
>> and whether it *can* be done now for PG10.
>
> FWIW, I'd much rather see us get it right the first time than release
> PG10 with a syntax that we'll regret later. I do not think that beta2,
> or even beta3, is too late for such a change.
>
> I'm not taking a position on whether this proposal is actually better
> than what we have. But if there's a consensus that it is, we should
> go ahead and do it, not worry that it's too late.
>

OK, thanks. That's good to know.

Regards,
Dean