On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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