Hi,

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 
> <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> At Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:43:37 -0400, "Jonathan S. Katz" 
> <jonathan.k...@excoventures.com <mailto:jonathan.k...@excoventures.com>> 
> wrote in <efeba03d-effc-46e2-a0f7-41d004870...@excoventures.com 
> <mailto:efeba03d-effc-46e2-a0f7-41d004870...@excoventures.com>>
>>                case EXPR_KIND_PARTITION_BOUNDS:
>>                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ..
>> 2 errors generated.
>> 
>> The attached patch fixes the error.
> 
> Sorry for the silly mistake.
> 
>> I ran the following cases:
>> 
>> Case #1: My Original Test Case
>> 
>>      CREATE TABLE records (
>>          id int GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY NOT NULL,
>>          record_date date NOT NULL,
>>          record_text text,
>>          archived bool NOT NULL DEFAULT FALSE
>>      ) PARTITION BY LIST(archived);
>> 
>>      CREATE TABLE records_archive
>>      PARTITION OF records
>>      FOR VALUES IN (TRUE);
>> 
>>      CREATE TABLE records_active
>>      PARTITION OF records
>>      FOR VALUES IN (FALSE);
>> 
>> Everything created like a charm.
>> 
>> Case #2: random()
>> 
>>      CREATE TABLE oddity (
>>          id int GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY NOT NULL,
>>          random_filter int
>>      ) PARTITION BY LIST(random_filter);
>> 
>>      CREATE TABLE oddity_random
>>      PARTITION OF oddity
>>      FOR VALUES IN ((random() * 100)::int);
>> 
>> I did a \d+ on oddity and:
>> 
>>      partitions=# \d+ oddity
>>      (truncated)
>>      Partition key: LIST (random_filter)
>>      Partitions: oddity_random FOR VALUES IN (19)
>> 
>> So this appears to behave as described above.
>> 
>> Attached is the patch with the fix for the build.  This is the first time 
>> I’m attaching
>> a patch for the core server, so apologizes if I missed up the formatting.
> 
> Thank you for verification and the revised patch. The format is
> fine and the fix is correct but I noticed that I forgot to remove
> plural S's from error messages. The attached is the version with
> the fix.

I applied the new version of the patch and ran through the above scenarios
again.  Everything behaved as expected from a user standpoint.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Reply via email to