Robert,
> If the value is less than v1, put it in a partition called p1.
> If the value is less than v2, put it in a position called p2.
> <repeat ad nauseum, and then, optionally:>
> If the value is not less than any of the above, put it in a partition
> called poverflow.
>
> I like that design, not least but also not only because it's similar
> to what one of our competitors does.
Sure. I'm just restarting the discussion from the point of "what's the
very simplest implementation of partitioning we could create and still
be useful?"
There's value in similicity. First, by having a very simple
implementation it's more likely someone will code it. If we let
-hackers pile on the "must have X feature" to a new partitioning
implementation, it'll never get built.
Second, the key-based partitioning I described would actually be
preferred to what you describe by a lot of users I know, because it's
even simpler than what you propose, which means less contract DBA work
they have to pay for to set it up.
I'm sure what we eventually implement will be a compromise. I just want
to push the discussion away from the "must have every feature under the
sun" direction and towards something that might actually work.
Oh, and no question that automatic partitioning will be a PITA and might
not be implemented for years. But it's a serious user desire.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com