Robert Haas wrote: > I just don't understand why you think there should be multiple > spellings of the same bound. Generally, canonicalization is good. > One of my fears here is that at least some people will get confused > and think a bound from (minvalue, 0) to (maxvalue, 10) allows any > value for the first column and a 0-9 value for the second column which > is wrong. > > My other fear is that, since you've not only allowed this into the > syntax but into the catalog, this will become a source of bugs for > years to come. Every future patch that deals with partition bounds > will now have to worry about testing > unbounded-followed-by-non-unbounded. If we're not going to put back > those error checks completely - and I think we should - we should at > least canonicalize what actually gets stored.
Did anything happen on this, or did we just forget it completely? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
