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 , 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? Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net