On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:37:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > 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).
I don't know about user wishes directly, though I do suspect fixed partition stride would cover more than 25% of uses cases. I do know that SQL Server, Oracle and MySQL have variable-stride range partitioning, and none of them have fixed-stride range partitioning. So, like Heikki and Robert, I would bet on variable-stride range partitioning. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
