From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Boolean partitions syntax |
Date: | 2017-12-12 09:43:57 |
Message-ID: | a6111de5-a69c-8754-8c88-1a112836cce2@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/12/12 18:12, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Horiguchi-san pointed out [1] on a nearby thread that the partitioning
>> syntax (the FOR VALUES clause) doesn't accept true and false as valid
>> partition bound datums, which seems to me like an oversight. Attached a
>> patch to fix that.
>
> May be you should use opt_boolean_or_string instead of TRUE_P and
> FALSE_P. It also supports ON and OFF, which will be bonus.
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried that but NonReservedWord_or_Sconst
conflicts with Sconst that partbound_datum itself has a rule for,
resulting in the following error:
gram.y: conflicts: 6 reduce/reduce
gram.y: expected 0 reduce/reduce conflicts
gram.y:2769.25-81: warning: rule useless in parser due to conflicts:
partbound_datum: Sconst
Moreover, it seems like on/off are not being accepted as valid Boolean
values like true/false are.
insert into rp values (true);
INSERT 0 1
insert into rp values (on);
ERROR: syntax error at or near "on"
LINE 1: insert into rp values (on);
^
What's going on with that? Maybe on/off values work only with SET
statements?
Thanks,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-12-12 09:46:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-12-12 09:29:48 | Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted? - overestimated correlation and cost_index |