On 2018/04/22 2:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> I think if this bug/open item can be resolved by adopting the minimal >> patch, then we should use it for that. Maybe, we can discuss the rest of >> the changes independently. If they make things better overall, we should >> definitely try to adopt them. > > Yeah. While I think that getting rid of the grammar restrictions on what > a partbound can be is a good idea, it seems like this is not the sort of > improvement to be making post-feature-freeze. And it's certainly not > something to back-patch to v10.
Agreed. > I propose the attached slightly-less-invasive version of Amit's original > patch as what we should do in v10 and v11, and push the patch currently > under discussion out to v12. Here too. >> About the changes in transformPartitionBoundValue() to check for collation >> conflict, I think that seems unnecessary. > > I agree. We can document that the partbound expression is reduced to a > simple constant and leave it at that. Nobody has yet been confused by > the possibility of putting COLLATE in a default expression, and I don't > believe that anybody will be confused here. Yes, I think so. > (Speaking of documentation, nobody seems to have noticed that > partition_bound_spec appears in alter_table.sgml too.) Oops, thanks for fixing that. Actually, partition_bound_spec wasn't expanded like it is now in the synopsis of alter_table.sgml at the time the original patch was written. Commit a2a22057617 (dated Feb 2) added it, whereas the patch was posted on Jan 29. Thanks, Amit
