Hi Amit,

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.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.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
>>> expression.
>> 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 [2], 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?


Reply via email to