On 17 July 2017 at 16:34, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Technically, anything that can be done using INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE can >> also be done using using MINVALUE/MAXVALUE, by artificially adding >> another partitioning column and making it unbounded above/below, but >> that would really just be a hack, and it (artificially adding an extra >> column) would be unnecessary if we added INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE support >> in a later release. Thus, I think the 2 features would complement each >> other quite nicely. > > OK, works for me. I'm not really keen about the MINVALUE/MAXVALUE > syntax -- it's really +/- infinity, not a value at all -- but I > haven't got a better proposal and yours at least has the virtue of > perhaps being familiar to those who know about Oracle. >
Cool. Sounds like we've reached a consensus, albeit with some reservations around the fact that MINVALUE/MAXVALUE aren't actually values, despite their names. +/- infinity *are* values for some datatypes such as timestamps, so it had to be something different from that, and MINVALUE/MAXVALUE are quite short and simple, and match the syntax used by 3 other databases. > Do you want to own this open item, then? > OK. I need to give the patch another read-through, and then I'll aim to push it sometime in the next few days. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers