I forgot to quote your comments in the email I sent on Friday [1], with
new patches that do take care of the following comments.

On 2016/11/11 4:04, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Amit Langote
>> OK, "partition key" and "partitioning method" it is then.  Source code
>> comments, error messages, variables call the latter (partitioning)
>> "strategy" though which hopefully is fine.
> Oh, I like "partitioning strategy".  Can we standardize on that?


>> OK, I have removed the syntactic ability to specify INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE
>> with each of the range bounds.
>> I haven't changed any code (such as comparison functions) that manipulates
>> instances of PartitionRangeBound which has a flag called inclusive.  I
>> didn't remove the flag, but is instead just set to (is_lower ? true :
>> false) when initializing from the parse node. Perhaps, there is some scope
>> for further simplifying that code, which you probably alluded to when you
>> proposed that we do this.
> Yes, you need to rip out all of the logic that supports it.  Having
> the logic to support it but not the syntax is bad because then that
> code can't be properly tested.

Agreed and done.  Now the only thing that dictates the inclusivity of
individual range bounds during comparisons (with other range bounds or
partition key of tuples) is whether the bound is a lower bound or not;
inclusive if, exclusive if not.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to