On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Sven R. Kunze <srkunze@mail.de> wrote:
> You are definitely right. Changing it here would require to change it
> everywhere AND thus to loose syntax parity with Oracle.
Right.
> I am not in a position to judge this properly whether this would be a huge
> problem. Personally, I don't have an issue with that. But don't count me as
> most important opion on this.
Well, I don't think it would be a HUGE problem, but I think the fact
that Amit chose to implement this with syntax similar to that of
Oracle is probably not a coincidence, but rather a goal, and I think
the readability problem that you're worrying about is really pretty
minor. I think most people aren't going to subpartition their default
partition, and I think those who do will probably find the syntax
clear enough anyway. So I don't favor changing it. Now, if there's
an outcry of support for your position then I'll stand aside but I
don't anticipate that.
>> So I guess I'm still in favor of the CREATE TABLE p1 PARTITION OF test
>> DEFAULT syntax, but if it ends up being AS DEFAULT instead, I can live
>> with that.
>
> Is to make it optional an option?
Optional keywords may not be the root of ALL evil, but they're pretty
evil. See my posting earlier on this same thread on this topic:
http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoZGHgd3vKZvyQ1Qx3e0L3n=voxY57mz9TTncVET-aLK2A@mail.gmail.com
The issues here are more or less the same.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
