From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multi column range partition table |
Date: | 2017-07-06 21:43:44 |
Message-ID: | da16b23d-aac2-6040-e4ab-26fe1383aea8@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/06/2017 01:24 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> 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.
I agree we should get this right the first time and I also agree with
Dean's proposal, so I guess I'm a +2
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2017-07-07 00:02:28 | New partitioning - some feedback |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-06 21:23:12 | Re: WIP patch: distinguish selectivity of < from <= and > from >= |