|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||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: Re: Boolean partitions syntax|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
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.
> That said, after seeing David Rowley's post earlier today , it seems
> that we may need to consider this issue a bug rather than a new feature.
Perhaps that should be handled as a bug fix. Does this patch answer the
need or should a new one be developed?
|Next Message||David Steele||2018-03-06 14:50:55||Re: Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT|
|Previous Message||Ildar Musin||2018-03-06 14:37:06||Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL|