| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: using expression syntax for partition bounds |
| Date: | 2019-01-26 07:42:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20190126074236.GK6459@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:14:33PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> The describe lines are there just to show that the stored expessions are
> not verbatim same as the input expressions, so it seemed an overkill to add
> them for all of the partitions.
I see, so per 7c079d7 this is the reason why showing part_3 matters
because you want to show the result of the expression after executing
the DDL, and this has been just added:
+CREATE TABLE part_3 PARTITION OF list_parted FOR VALUES IN ((2+1));
I think that it would be a good thing to show at least the NULL
partition because its partition definition has semantics different
from the three others so as it replaces part_1. What do you think?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-01-26 08:08:30 | Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-01-26 04:33:47 | Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray |