On 6 July 2017 at 22:43, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > I agree we should get this right the first time and I also agree with > Dean's proposal, so I guess I'm a +2 >
On 7 July 2017 at 03:21, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > +1 to releasing this syntax in PG 10. > So, that's 3 votes in favour of replacing UNBOUNDED with MINVALUE/MAXVALUE for range partition bounds in PG 10. Not a huge consensus, but no objections either. Any one else have an opinion? Robert, have you been following this thread? I was thinking of pushing this later today, in time for beta2. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
