On 2017/04/25 5:16, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Rahila Syed <rahilasye...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Following can also be considered as it specifies more clearly that the >>>> partition holds default values. >>>> >>>> CREATE TABLE ...PARTITION OF...FOR VALUES DEFAULT; >>> >>> The partition doesn't contain default values; it is itself a default. >> >> Is CREATE TABLE ... DEFAULT PARTITION OF ... feasible? That sounds more >> natural. > > I suspect it could be done as of now, but I'm a little worried that it > might create grammar conflicts in the future as we extend the syntax > further. If we use CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION OF .. DEFAULT, then the > word DEFAULT appears in the same position where we'd normally have FOR > VALUES, and so the parser will definitely be able to figure out what's > going on. When it gets to that position, it will see FOR or it will > see DEFAULT, and all is clear. OTOH, if we use CREATE TABLE ... > DEFAULT PARTITION OF ..., then we have action at a distance: whether > or not the word DEFAULT is present before PARTITION affects which > tokens are legal after the parent table name. bison isn't always very > smart about that kind of thing. No particular dangers come to mind at > the moment, but it makes me nervous anyway.
+1 to CREATE TABLE .. PARTITION OF .. DEFAULT Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
