On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:37:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Yeah, but people expect to be able to partition on ranges that are not
> > all of equal width. I think any proposal that we shouldn't support
> > that is the kiss of death for a feature like this - it will be so
> > restricted as to eliminate 75% of the use cases.
>
> Well, that's debatable IMO (especially your claim that variable-size
> partitions would be needed by a majority of users).
I don't know about user wishes directly, though I do suspect fixed partition
stride would cover more than 25% of uses cases. I do know that SQL Server,
Oracle and MySQL have variable-stride range partitioning, and none of them
have fixed-stride range partitioning. So, like Heikki and Robert, I would bet
on variable-stride range partitioning.