Robert, > If the value is less than v1, put it in a partition called p1. > If the value is less than v2, put it in a position called p2. > <repeat ad nauseum, and then, optionally:> > If the value is not less than any of the above, put it in a partition > called poverflow. > > I like that design, not least but also not only because it's similar > to what one of our competitors does.
Sure. I'm just restarting the discussion from the point of "what's the very simplest implementation of partitioning we could create and still be useful?" There's value in similicity. First, by having a very simple implementation it's more likely someone will code it. If we let -hackers pile on the "must have X feature" to a new partitioning implementation, it'll never get built. Second, the key-based partitioning I described would actually be preferred to what you describe by a lot of users I know, because it's even simpler than what you propose, which means less contract DBA work they have to pay for to set it up. I'm sure what we eventually implement will be a compromise. I just want to push the discussion away from the "must have every feature under the sun" direction and towards something that might actually work. Oh, and no question that automatic partitioning will be a PITA and might not be implemented for years. But it's a serious user desire. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
