On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.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. Greetings, Andres Freund
