Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 08:51:30PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That's what I would have done if it was easier to do with constraint exclusion 
> > (did only date partitioning), as the reporting queries will always have some 
> > server (stats by services, each service being installed on 1 or more servers) 
> > and date restrictions.
> 
> Hmm, well if you found declaring the partitions a problem with
> constraint exclusion it's not going to be any easier using other
> declarative approaches.

I disagree (although it is unreasonable for me to do so without posting
syntax -- it's coming). Proper grammar for partition support means
running a single DDL command. The user does not have to line up table
generation with rules (or triggers) and check constraints. As such, I
believe it to be much much easier.

Thanks,
Gavin