On 8 August 2017 at 19:22, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> Also drop the constraint prohibiting finite values after an unbounded
>> column, and just document the fact that any values after MINVALUE or
>> MAXVALUE are ignored. Previously it was necessary to repeat UNBOUNDED
>> multiple times, which was needlessly verbose.
> I would like to (belatedly) complain about this part of this commit.
> Now you can do stuff like this:
> rhaas=# create table foo (a int, b text) partition by range (a, b);
> rhaas=# create table foo1 partition of foo for values from (minvalue,
> 0) to (maxvalue, 0);
> The inclusion of 0 has no effect, but it is still stored in the
> catalog, shows up in \d foo1, and somebody might think it does
> something.  I think we should go back to requiring bounds after
> minvalue or maxvalue to be minvalue or maxvalue.  I thought maybe the
> idea here was that you were going to allow something like this to
> work, which actually would have saved some typing:
> create table foo2 partition of foo for values from (minvalue) to (maxvalue);
> But no:
> ERROR:  FROM must specify exactly one value per partitioning column
> So the only way that this has made things less verbose is by letting
> you put in a meaningless value of the data type which takes fewer than
> 8 characters to type.  That doesn't seem to me to be a defensible way
> of reducing verbosity.

Well perhaps verbosity-reduction isn't sufficient justification but I
still think this is correct because logically any values in the bound
after MINVALUE/MAXVALUE are irrelevant, so it seems overly restrictive
to force all later values to be MINVALUE/MAXVALUE when the code will
just ignore those values.

I don't think we should allow values after MINVALUE/MAXVALUE to be
omitted altogether because we document multi-column ranges as being
most easily understood according to the rules of row-wise comparisons,
and they require equal numbers of values in each row.

It's also worth noting that this choice is consistent with other
databases, so at least some people will be used to being able to do


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

Reply via email to