From: | "Sven R(dot) Kunze" <srkunze(at)mail(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Keith Fiske <keith(at)omniti(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning |
Date: | 2017-05-10 20:21:42 |
Message-ID: | 024e4ab7-de6b-f13d-a16b-f933b3192f14@mail.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10.05.2017 17:59, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, I don't think it would be a HUGE problem, but I think the fact
> that Amit chose to implement this with syntax similar to that of
> Oracle is probably not a coincidence, but rather a goal, and I think
> the readability problem that you're worrying about is really pretty
> minor. I think most people aren't going to subpartition their default
> partition, and I think those who do will probably find the syntax
> clear enough anyway.
I agree here.
> Optional keywords may not be the root of ALL evil, but they're pretty
> evil. See my posting earlier on this same thread on this topic:
>
> http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZGHgd3vKZvyQ1Qx3e0L3n=voxY57mz9TTncVET-aLK2A@mail.gmail.com
>
> The issues here are more or less the same.
Ah, I see. I didn't draw the conclusion from the optionality of a
keyword the other day but after re-reading your post, it's exactly the
same issue.
Let's avoid optional keywords!
Sven
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-10 20:26:02 | Re: Transaction held open by autoanalyze can be a bottleneck |
Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2017-05-10 20:17:29 | Re: Function to move the position of a replication slot |