Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2008-01-14 kell 10:49, kirjutas Markus Schiltknecht: > Hi, > > Jeff Cohen wrote: > > We did look at allowing general functions for partitioning and this was > > one concern. The other is that we want to enforce that a row only gets > > inserted into a single partition, so we wanted a declarative syntax > > where it was relatively easy to check that range and list specifications > > don't overlap. > > Why do you need to define a split point so ambiguously at all? Why not > just give the DBA exactly *one* place to define the split point? > > I don't think the separation into list, hash and range partitioning is > adequate. What is the system supposed to do, if you try to insert a row > which doesn't fit any of the values in your list or doesn't fit any of > the ranges you defined?
I guess it would go to some "default" partition ? ... > IMO, a single DDL command should only touch a single split point, i.e. > split a table into two partitions, move the split point or remove the > split point (joining the partitions again). Those are the only basic > commands you need to be able to handle partitioning. sure, but this can become really tedious for 1024 partitions, not to mention hard for optimiser. > Sorry, but for my taste, the proposed grammar is too long per command, > not flexible enough and instead ambiguous for split points as well as > for constraints. To me it looks like repeating the mistakes of others. what mistakes ? ----------------- Hannu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
