On 3/21/18 10:59 PM, Amit Langote wrote: > 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
If you want to bring this patch up to date and recast it as a bug fix for the open issue I'll be happy to add it to the CF as a bug fix. However, it seems to me the best plan might be to start with David's patch [1] and make it play nice with old pg_dumps. Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKJS1f-BL%2Br5FXSejDu%3D%2BMAvzRARaawRnQ_ZFtbv_o6tha9NJw%40mail.gmail.com#CAKJS1f-BL+r5FXSejDu=+mavzraraawrnq_zftbv_o6tha9...@mail.gmail.com