Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

Hi,

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 table is not 
true. It's better

> 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).
> Then a partition is automatically created when a new row arrives for a
> new value. That does not however address Tom's concern of rejecting data
> that is outside the acceptable window, but maybe that is better dealt
> with in the application anyways.
> 
> Andreas
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match