Hi, (sorry for the previous one, if delivered, that went of too early...)
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
Yes, but the problem with the timestamp partitioned tables is, that the window is sliding. Thus you would need two alter tables for each new period. One that changes the constraint + one that creates the new partition. So it seems natural to join the two concepts for such a partitioning syntax.
If you think in terms of split points, having to alter two partitions isn't true, you just add a split point.
Of course, that also alters the "constraints" of the partitions, but I think we all agree that the system should maintain those constraints automatically, anyway. As such, they don't even have to be visible to the DBA.
Personally I find the automatic partition idea intriguing, where you only have to choose an expression that equates to one value (value group) per partition (and possibly a way to derive a partition name).
IMO, better go right to a fully automated approach. Or why would you need partition names in such a case?
Regards Markus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
