Hi,

>
> I appreciate you efforts, but I'm not sure if this has been discussed


Thanks Markus.

enough. There seem to be two ideas floating around:
>
> - you are heading for automating the current kludge, which involves
> creating partitions and constraints by hand. AFAICT, you want to
> support list and range partitioning.
>
> - Simon Riggs has proposed partitioning functions, which could easily
> handle any type of partitioning (hash, list, range and any mix of
> those).


When I submitted the proposal, AFAIR there was no objection to going with
the first proposal. Yes there was a lot of forward looking discussion, but
since what I had proposed (atleast syntax wise) was similar/closer to Mysql,
Oracle I did not see any one objecting to it. I think SQL server provides
partitioning functions similar to Simon's proposal. And all along, I had
maintained that I wanted to automate as far as possible, the existing
mechanism for partitioning. To this too, I do not remember anyone objecting
to.

Our current partitioning solution is based on inheritance. With that in
mind, for 8.3 I thought an implementation based on auto rules creation would
be the way to go.

Having said that, obviously I would want to go with the consensus on this
list as to what we think is the *best* way to go forward with partitioning.

Regards,
Nikhils
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com