> > 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?
Yes, I tend to aggree on that, with the exception that I think the partition borders should be declarative expressions (equal in syntax to a GROUP BY clause). Names are only for a short and crisp way to identify the partition for the following operations: - drop/detach data in a partition (as opposed to a normal delete) - move to/create in other tablespace (I don't value that one, but others have) - reorg, create index The drop can probably be done straight from a normal delete (a problem is RI and triggers though). The normal delete would need to have the smarts, that a delete covers a whole partition, and thus mark the whole partition dead instead of it's individual rows. A detach would need some extra syntax, but could also be based on a where clause that specifies which partitions are to be detached. I am not so sure about how to usefully do the reorg part with where clauses. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq