Hi, I'm reviewing your patch. The patch applies without problems and the feature works as advertised. I have yet to look at the code in detail, but it looks sane and seems to work. However, this looks like a mistake:
partinfo = (PartitionInfo *) malloc(ntups * sizeof(PartitionInfo)); or am I missing something? The syntax itself seems a bit weird in some cases. Say you have: PARTITION BY RANGE ( foo USING > ) ( PARTITION bar VALUES LESS THAN 0 ); which translates to CHECK (bar > 0). That doesn't sound at all like LESS THAN to me. This syntax seems to be the same Oracle uses, and I think it's nice for the general case, but I think the reversed operator weirdness is a bit too much. Maybe we should use something like PARTITION bar VALUES OPERATOR 0 when the user specifies the operator? Regards, Marko Tiikkaja -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers