On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:13:11PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > 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.
Is "partition the domain" really that big an ask? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
