On 17 July 2017 at 16:34, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Technically, anything that can be done using INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE can
>> also be done using using MINVALUE/MAXVALUE, by artificially adding
>> another partitioning column and making it unbounded above/below, but
>> that would really just be a hack, and it (artificially adding an extra
>> column) would be unnecessary if we added INCLUSIVE/EXCLUSIVE support
>> in a later release. Thus, I think the 2 features would complement each
>> other quite nicely.
>
> OK, works for me. I'm not really keen about the MINVALUE/MAXVALUE
> syntax -- it's really +/- infinity, not a value at all -- but I
> haven't got a better proposal and yours at least has the virtue of
> perhaps being familiar to those who know about Oracle.
>
Cool. Sounds like we've reached a consensus, albeit with some
reservations around the fact that MINVALUE/MAXVALUE aren't actually
values, despite their names.
+/- infinity *are* values for some datatypes such as timestamps, so it
had to be something different from that, and MINVALUE/MAXVALUE are
quite short and simple, and match the syntax used by 3 other
databases.
> Do you want to own this open item, then?
>
OK.
I need to give the patch another read-through, and then I'll aim to
push it sometime in the next few days.
Regards,
Dean
