On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > 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?
I forgot it. :-( I really think we should fix this. -- 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
