Hi David. On 2018/03/21 23:31, David Steele wrote: > Hi Amit, > > On 3/6/18 9:44 AM, David Steele wrote: >> 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. > > Hearing no opinions to the contrary I have marked this entry Returned > with Feedback. Please resubmit when you have an updated patch.
OK. Btw, there is an 11dev open item recently added to the wiki that's related to this, but I think we might be able to deal with it independently of this proposal. * Partitions with bool partition keys * https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_11_Open_Items#Open_Issues Thanks, Amit
