Re: Multi column range partition table

On 07/06/2017 01:24 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 6 July 2017 at 21:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
>>> However, this is also an incompatible syntax change, and any attempt
>>> to support both the old and new syntaxes is likely to be messy, so we
>>> really need to get consensus on whether this is the right thing to do,
>>> and whether it *can* be done now for PG10.
>>
>> FWIW, I'd much rather see us get it right the first time than release
>> PG10 with a syntax that we'll regret later.  I do not think that beta2,
>> or even beta3, is too late for such a change.
>>
>> I'm not taking a position on whether this proposal is actually better
>> than what we have.  But if there's a consensus that it is, we should
>> go ahead and do it, not worry that it's too late.
>>
> 
> OK, thanks. That's good to know.

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

Joe

-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development