Re: Boolean partitions syntax

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com, david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Boolean partitions syntax
Date: 2018-04-24 00:23:03
Message-ID: bdb1d41a-a150-406c-cc66-c93c7625f388@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/04/24 4:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> On 2018/04/22 2:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I propose the attached slightly-less-invasive version of Amit's original
>>> patch as what we should do in v10 and v11, and push the patch currently
>>> under discussion out to v12.
>
>> Here too.
>
> Pushed. It occurred to me at the last moment that we could partially
> address one of my original concerns about this hack by converting TRUE
> and FALSE to strings 'true' and 'false' not just 't' and 'f'. Those
> will be accepted by boolin just as well, and doing it like that slightly
> reduces the astonishment factor if somebody writes TRUE for, say, a
> text column's partbound. I'd still prefer that we throw an error for
> such a case, but that'll have to wait for v12.

Thanks for making that change and committing.

Regards,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-04-24 00:29:59 Local partitioned indexes and pageinspect
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2018-04-24 00:09:23 Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS