On 2/10/15 2:04 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>>> > >Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
>>> > >all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
>>> > >that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so
>>> > >restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use cases.
>> >
>> >Well, that's debatable IMO (especially your claim that variable-size
>> >partitions would be needed by a majority of users).
> It's ubiquitous.
>
> Time range partition sets almost always have some sets with finite
> range and at least one range with infinity in it: "current end" to
> infinity, and somewhat less frequently in my experience, -infinity to
> some arbitrary start.
We could instead handle that with a generic "this doesn't fit in any
other partition" capability. Presumably that would be easy if we're
building this on top of inheritance features.
If we exclude the issue of needing one or two oddball partitions for +/-
infinity, I expect that fixed sized partitions would actually cover
80-90% of cases.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com