On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:59 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> I think we are being consistent as a project by enforcing strictness of
> input in this situation so I'll toss my +0.5/+1 here as well.
All right, since all three new votes are going the same direction with
this, committed the patch for
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Robert, all,
>
> * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I vote for rejecting it. DDL compatibility is less valuable than other
> > > compatibility. The hypothetical affected application can change its
> DDL to
> > > pla
Robert, all,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> > Both Oracle and MySQL allow finite values after MAXVALUE (usually
> >> > listed as "0" in code examples, e.g. see [1]). Oracle explicitly
> >> > documents the fact that values af
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> > Both Oracle and MySQL allow finite values after MAXVALUE (usually
>> > listed as "0" in code examples, e.g. see [1]). Oracle explicitly
>> > documents the fact that values after MAXVALUE are irrelevant in [1].
>> > I'm not sure if MySQL expl
On 2017/09/14 16:53, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 13 September 2017 at 10:05, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> Coincidentally, I just wrote the patch for canonicalizing stored values,
>> instead of erroring out. Please see attached if that's what you were
>> thinking too.
>>
>
> Looks reasonable to me, if w
On 14 September 2017 at 03:49, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:06:40PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> OK, thanks. I still don't really like allowing this, but I can see
>> that compatibility with other systems has some value here, and if
>> nobody else is rejecting these cases, maybe
On 13 September 2017 at 14:51, Robert Haas wrote:
> Coincidentally, I wrote a patch for this too, but mine goes back to
> rejecting MINVALUE or MAXVALUE followed by anything else.
>
LGTM, if we decide to go this way.
One minor review comment -- you missed an example code snippet using
(MINVALUE,
On 13 September 2017 at 10:05, Amit Langote
wrote:
> Coincidentally, I just wrote the patch for canonicalizing stored values,
> instead of erroring out. Please see attached if that's what you were
> thinking too.
>
Looks reasonable to me, if we decide to go this way.
One minor review comment --
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:06:40PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
> > Oracle, MySQL and DB2 all use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE. Actually, Oracle and
> > MySQL only use MAXVALUE, not MINVALUE, because they don't allow gaps
> > between partitions and the
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Oracle, MySQL and DB2 all use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE. Actually, Oracle and
> MySQL only use MAXVALUE, not MINVALUE, because they don't allow gaps
> between partitions and the first partition implicitly starts at
> MINVALUE, so the bounds that we c
On 13 September 2017 at 14:53, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>> A drawback to doing this is that we lose compatibility with syntaxes
>> supported by other databases, which was part of the reason for
>> choosing the terms MINVALUE and MAXVALUE in the
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Amit Langote
wrote:
>> So thinking about this afresh, my preference would actually be to just
>> canonicalise the values stored rather than erroring out.
>
> Coincidentally, I just wrote the patch for canonicalizing stored values,
> instead of erroring out. Please
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> A drawback to doing this is that we lose compatibility with syntaxes
> supported by other databases, which was part of the reason for
> choosing the terms MINVALUE and MAXVALUE in the first place.
>
> So thinking about this afresh, my preferen
Hi Dean,
On 2017/09/13 17:51, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Did anything happen on this, or did we just forget it completely?
>>
>> I forgot it. :-(
>>
>> I really think we should fix this.
>
> Ah, sorry. This was fo
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Did anything happen on this, or did we just forget it completely?
>
> I forgot it. :-(
>
> I really think we should fix this.
Ah, sorry. This was for me to follow up, and I dropped the ball.
Here's a patch resto
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Did anything happen on this, or did we just forget it completely?
> I forgot it. :-(
> I really think we should fix this.
+1. You've got the rest of the week ...
regards, tom lane
--
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera 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
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
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Well perhaps verbosity-reduction isn't sufficient justification but I
> still think this is correct because logically any values in the bound
> after MINVALUE/MAXVALUE are irrelevant, so it seems overly restrictive
> to force all later values t
On 2017/08/09 9:03, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> Well perhaps verbosity-reduction isn't sufficient justification but I
>> still think this is correct because logically any values in the bound
>> after MINVALUE/MAXVALUE are irrelevant, so it seems
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Dean Rasheed
wrote:
> On 8 August 2017 at 19:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
> >> Also drop the constraint prohibiting finite values after an unbounded
> >> column, and just document the fact that any values after
On 8 August 2017 at 19:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>> Also drop the constraint prohibiting finite values after an unbounded
>> column, and just document the fact that any values after MINVALUE or
>> MAXVALUE are ignored. Previously it was neces
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:24 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Also drop the constraint prohibiting finite values after an unbounded
> column, and just document the fact that any values after MINVALUE or
> MAXVALUE are ignored. Previously it was necessary to repeat UNBOUNDED
> multiple times, which was ne
23 matches
Mail list logo