> The only problem I have with this is that the shops I know with big > partitioned tables favor triggers over rules for both performance reason and > a cleaner implementation. Even with automated rule creation this isnt going > to change afaics... not to mention we already create our rules & triggers > automatically, so really this just isn't exciting to me (though it may make > it easier for people getting in on the ground floor)
I second this. The trigger route is much more maintainable than the rule route. IMO what really needs to happen is something more low level where there are no DBA visible changes. Triggers also have overhead, it would be nice to get a little more bare metal with this.
I had raised this issue about rules/triggers back then and the responses seemed to be evenly split as to which ones to use.
I think the broad question really is how well we want to support the current inheritance based partitioning mechanism. If we want to stick to it for a while (and to which we will stick to unless something concrete/better/"bare metal" comes up), IMHO we should try to make things simpler (by automating things if possible) to make it easier for people getting in.
