Re: Boolean partitions syntax

On 2018-02-02 17:00:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > There might be other options, but one way to solve this would be to
> > treat partition bounds as a general expression in the grammar and then
> > check in post-parse analysis that it's a constant.
> 
> That's pretty much what I said upthread.  What I basically don't like
> about the current setup is that it's assuming that the bound item is
> a bare literal.  Even disregarding future-extension issues, that's bad
> because it can't result in an error message smarter than "syntax error"
> when someone tries the rather natural thing of writing a more complicated
> expression.

Given the current state of this patch, with a number of senior
developers disagreeing with the design, and the last CF being in
progress, I think we should mark this as returned with feedback.


Greetings,

Andres Freund