Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I think if this bug/open item can be resolved by adopting the minimal
> patch, then we should use it for that. Maybe, we can discuss the rest of
> the changes independently. If they make things better overall, we should
> definitely try to adopt them.

Yeah. While I think that getting rid of the grammar restrictions on what
a partbound can be is a good idea, it seems like this is not the sort of
improvement to be making post-feature-freeze. And it's certainly not
something to back-patch to v10.

I propose the attached slightly-less-invasive version of Amit's original
patch as what we should do in v10 and v11, and push the patch currently
under discussion out to v12.

> About the changes in transformPartitionBoundValue() to check for collation
> conflict, I think that seems unnecessary.

I agree. We can document that the partbound expression is reduced to a
simple constant and leave it at that. Nobody has yet been confused by
the possibility of putting COLLATE in a default expression, and I don't
believe that anybody will be confused here.

(Speaking of documentation, nobody seems to have noticed that
partition_bound_spec appears in alter_table.sgml too.)

regards, tom lane