On 08/19/2015 01:18 PM, Thom Brown wrote: > On 19 August 2015 at 21:10, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com > <mailto:j...@agliodbs.com>> wrote: > > On 08/19/2015 04:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I like the idea of a regular partitioning step because it is how you > > design such tables - "lets use monthly partitions". > > > > This gives sanely terse syntax, rather than specifying pages and pages > > of exact values in DDL.... > > > > PARTITION BY RANGE ON (columns) INCREMENT BY (INTERVAL '1 month' ) > > START WITH value; > > Oh, I like that syntax! > > How would it work if there were multiple columns? Maybe we don't want > to allow that for this form? > > > If we went with that, and had: > > CREATE TABLE orders (order_id serial, order_date date, item text) > PARTITION BY RANGE ON (order_date) INCREMENT BY (INTERVAL '1 month') > START WITH '2015-01-01'; > > Where would the following go? > > INSERT INTO orders (order_date, item) VALUES ('2014-11-12', 'Old item'); > > Would there automatically be an "others" partition? Or would it produce > an error and act like a constraint?
The "others" partition was brought up upthread, as an addition to the original proposal. I really think that an "others" partition needs to be up to the DBA; I've seen apps where they'd want to capture it, and apps where they'd want such an insert to error. I, for one, would be OK with a new partitioning which didn't address the "others" partition issue until 9.7; I see it as a wholly separable improvement. Plus, you can always *manually* add high/low catchall partitions. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers