Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions

Hi,

Simon Riggs wrote:
> With that in mind, can I clarify what you're thinking, please?

Sure, I can try to clarify:

> 2) the things you've been discussing are essential requirements of
> partitioning and we could never consider it complete until they are also
> included and we must therefore talk about them now to check that its all
> possible before we do anything on SE

I thought so, but am slowly dropping that point of view. In favor of
something like: hey, if you manage to do it all automatically, cool, go
for it!

> 3) doing SE first is right, I'm just thinking ahead

Yes, SE certainly has merit. Combine it with some sort of maintained
CLUSTERing order and it's worth doing, IMO.

I'm not convinced about dynamic partitioning being able to generally
replace explicit partitioning anytime soon.

> Sorry if that seems blunt, I'm just not clear where we're going.

Well, implicit or automatic partitioning is still a pretty new concept
to me, but I'm slowly beginning to like it. Thank you for pointing me at it.

Regards

Markus