On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 08:42:32AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote: > 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.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Robert, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership and send a status update within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers