Re: Declarative partitioning grammar

Hi,

(sorry for the previous one, if delivered, that went of too early...)

Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
> Yes, but the problem with the timestamp partitioned tables is, that the
> window is sliding. Thus you would need two alter tables for each new
> period. One that changes the constraint + one that creates the new
> partition. So it seems natural to join the two concepts for such a
> partitioning syntax.

If you think in terms of split points, having to alter two partitions
isn't true, you just add a split point.

Of course, that also alters the "constraints" of the partitions, but I
think we all agree that the system should maintain those constraints
automatically, anyway. As such, they don't even have to be visible to
the DBA.

> Personally I find the automatic partition idea intriguing, where you
> only have to choose an expression that equates to one value (value
> group) per partition (and possibly a way to derive a partition name).

IMO, better go right to a fully automated approach. Or why would you
need partition names in such a case?

Regards

Markus