> Fabien, do you consider it possible to change the syntax of declarative
> partitioning too?
My 0.02 €: What I think does not matter much, what committers think is the
way to pass something. However, I do not think that such an idea would
pass a committer:-)
> It is problematic as it is already committed but also is very tempting
> to have the same type of syntax both in automatic partitioning and in
> manual (PARTITION OF...)
I think that if a "common" syntax, for a given meaning of common, can be
thought of, and without breaking backward compatibility, then there may be
an argument to provide such a syntax, but I would not put too much energy
into that if I were you.
I see 3 cases:
- partition declaration but no actual table generated, the current
version.
- partition declaration with actual sub-tables generated, eg for hash
where it is pretty straightforward to know what would be needed, or for
a bounded range.
- partition declaration without generated table, but they are generated
on demand, when needed, for a range one may want weekly or monthly
without creating tables in advance, esp. if it is unbounded.
ISTM that the syntax should be clear and if possible homogeneous for all
three use cases, even if they are not implemented yet. It should also
allow easy extensibility, hence something without a strong syntax,
key/value pairs to be interpreted later.
--
Fabien.
