| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multi column range partition table |
| Date: | 2017-07-09 07:42:32 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCUHu+pFF8yuJSVqyy24aeeXb+6d=h6nrf=nw+25Hq=zbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6 July 2017 at 22:43, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> I agree we should get this right the first time and I also agree with
> Dean's proposal, so I guess I'm a +2
>
On 7 July 2017 at 03:21, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> +1 to releasing this syntax in PG 10.
>
So, that's 3 votes in favour of replacing UNBOUNDED with
MINVALUE/MAXVALUE for range partition bounds in PG 10. Not a huge
consensus, but no objections either. Any one else have an opinion?
Robert, have you been following this thread?
I was thinking of pushing this later today, in time for beta2.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-07-09 08:04:01 | Re: pg_stop_backup(wait_for_archive := true) on standby server |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-07-09 00:38:49 | Re: GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays |