Re: Boolean partitions syntax

At Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:23:03 +0900, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <bdb1d41a-a150-406c-cc66-c93c7625f388(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> On 2018/04/24 4:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> On 2018/04/22 2:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> 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.

Agreed that it is too-much for v10. (I hoped that something more
might be introduced to v11:p)

> >> Here too.
> >
> > Pushed. It occurred to me at the last moment that we could partially
> > address one of my original concerns about this hack by converting TRUE
> > and FALSE to strings 'true' and 'false' not just 't' and 'f'. Those
> > will be accepted by boolin just as well, and doing it like that slightly
> > reduces the astonishment factor if somebody writes TRUE for, say, a
> > text column's partbound. I'd still prefer that we throw an error for
> > such a case, but that'll have to wait for v12.
>
> Thanks for making that change and committing.

+1, and thank you for discussing. I'll add this item to the next
CF.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center