Re: Re: Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Hi Amit,

On 3/6/18 9:44 AM, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/2/18 2:27 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/03/02 15:58, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>>>> There might be other options, but one way to solve this would be to
>>>>> treat partition bounds as a general expression in the grammar and then
>>>>> check in post-parse analysis that it's a constant.
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty much what I said upthread. What I basically don't like
>>>> about the current setup is that it's assuming that the bound item is
>>>> a bare literal. Even disregarding future-extension issues, that's bad
>>>> because it can't result in an error message smarter than "syntax error"
>>>> when someone tries the rather natural thing of writing a more complicated
>>>> expression.
>>>
>>> Given the current state of this patch, with a number of senior
>>> developers disagreeing with the design, and the last CF being in
>>> progress, I think we should mark this as returned with feedback.
>>
>> I see no problem with pursuing this in the next CF if the consensus is
>> that we should fix how partition bounds are parsed, instead of adopting
>> one of the patches to allow the Boolean literals to be accepted as
>> partition bounds.
>
> I'm inclined to mark this patch Returned with Feedback unless I hear
> opinions to the contrary.

Hearing no opinions to the contrary I have marked this entry Returned
with Feedback. Please resubmit when you have an updated patch.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net