Re: Boolean partitions syntax

Hi David.

On 2018/03/21 23:31, David Steele wrote:
> 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.

OK.

Btw, there is an 11dev open item recently added to the wiki that's related
to this, but I think we might be able to deal with it independently of
this proposal.

* Partitions with bool partition keys *
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_11_Open_Items#Open_Issues

Thanks,
Amit