Re: Boolean partitions syntax

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Boolean partitions syntax
Date: 2017-12-12 09:43:57
Message-ID: a6111de5-a69c-8754-8c88-1a112836cce2@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017/12/12 18:12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Horiguchi-san pointed out [1] on a nearby thread that the partitioning
>> syntax (the FOR VALUES clause) doesn't accept true and false as valid
>> partition bound datums, which seems to me like an oversight. Attached a
>> patch to fix that.
>
> May be you should use opt_boolean_or_string instead of TRUE_P and
> FALSE_P. It also supports ON and OFF, which will be bonus.

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried that but NonReservedWord_or_Sconst
conflicts with Sconst that partbound_datum itself has a rule for,
resulting in the following error:

gram.y: conflicts: 6 reduce/reduce
gram.y: expected 0 reduce/reduce conflicts
gram.y:2769.25-81: warning: rule useless in parser due to conflicts:
partbound_datum: Sconst

Moreover, it seems like on/off are not being accepted as valid Boolean
values like true/false are.

insert into rp values (true);
INSERT 0 1
insert into rp values (on);
ERROR: syntax error at or near "on"
LINE 1: insert into rp values (on);
^
What's going on with that? Maybe on/off values work only with SET
statements?

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-12-12 09:46:11 Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2017-12-12 09:29:48 Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted? - overestimated correlation and cost_index