Horton

Re: Multi column range partition table

Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-07-09T07:42:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 6 July 2017 at 22:43, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> I agree we should get this right the first time and I also agree with
> Dean's proposal, so I guess I'm a +2
>

On 7 July 2017 at 03:21, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> +1 to releasing this syntax in PG 10.
>

So, that's 3 votes in favour of replacing UNBOUNDED with
MINVALUE/MAXVALUE for range partition bounds in PG 10. Not a huge
consensus, but no objections either. Any one else have an opinion?

Robert, have you been following this thread?

I was thinking of pushing this later today, in time for beta2.

Regards,
Dean

Commits

  1. Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE instead of UNBOUNDED for range partition bounds.

  2. Clarify the contract of partition_rbound_cmp().

  3. Simplify the logic checking new range partition bounds.