>> I am not a fan of the proposed syntax. It is conceptually similar to
>> what we already do with constraints, but invents a whole new syntax to
>> no obvious benefit that I can see.
>
> Actually I did not invent a new syntax but tried to map the Oracle syntax
> which seems to be a requirement that appeared at multiple occasions in the
> discussions. The question is more whether Postgres wants to have its own
> syntax (and there might be good reasons for that) or if we want to use a
> syntax similar to other databases for easier migration (after all Postgres
> is very late on that topic compared to other databases).
I'm not saying you invented it - I'm saying that it is new relative to
what exists in PG today, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to
add something new.
I'd also note that even if we decide to use an Oracle-style syntax for
creating partitions, we're surely NOT going to use Oracle's format for
date constants when and only when we are doing partitioning.
...Robert
