Hi,
I'm reviewing your patch. The patch applies without problems and the
feature works as advertised. I have yet to look at the code in detail,
but it looks sane and seems to work. However, this looks like a mistake:
partinfo = (PartitionInfo *) malloc(ntups * sizeof(PartitionInfo));
or am I missing something?
The syntax itself seems a bit weird in some cases. Say you have:
PARTITION BY RANGE ( foo USING > )
(PARTITION bar VALUES LESS THAN 0
);
which translates to CHECK (bar > 0). That doesn't sound at all like
LESS THAN to me. This syntax seems to be the same Oracle uses, and I
think it's nice for the general case, but I think the reversed operator
weirdness is a bit too much. Maybe we should use something like
PARTITION bar VALUES OPERATOR 0
when the user specifies the operator?
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
