On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: > You are definitely right. Changing it here would require to change it > everywhere AND thus to loose syntax parity with Oracle.
Right. > I am not in a position to judge this properly whether this would be a huge > problem. Personally, I don't have an issue with that. But don't count me as > most important opion on this. Well, I don't think it would be a HUGE problem, but I think the fact that Amit chose to implement this with syntax similar to that of Oracle is probably not a coincidence, but rather a goal, and I think the readability problem that you're worrying about is really pretty minor. I think most people aren't going to subpartition their default partition, and I think those who do will probably find the syntax clear enough anyway. So I don't favor changing it. Now, if there's an outcry of support for your position then I'll stand aside but I don't anticipate that. >> So I guess I'm still in favor of the CREATE TABLE p1 PARTITION OF test >> DEFAULT syntax, but if it ends up being AS DEFAULT instead, I can live >> with that. > > Is to make it optional an option? Optional keywords may not be the root of ALL evil, but they're pretty evil. See my posting earlier on this same thread on this topic: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZGHgd3vKZvyQ1Qx3e0L3n=voxy57mz9ttncvet-al...@mail.gmail.com The issues here are more or less the same. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
