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.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. >> >> 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. Regards, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
