Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use MINVALUE/MAXVALUE insteadof UNBOUNDED for range partition b

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?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers