On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 15:09, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Haile wrote: > > This seems so much more intuitive and simpler than what is required to > > set it up in PostgreSQL. Does PostgreSQL's approach to table > > partitioning have any advantage over MySQL? Is a "nicer" syntax planned > > for Postgres? > > The focus was to get the base functionality working, and working > correctly. Another consideration is that there's multiple ways to > accomplish the partitioning; exposing the basic functionality without > enforcing a given interface provides more flexibility (ie: it appears > that you can't do list partitioning with MySQL, while you can with > PostgreSQL). And I don't think the mysql partition supports tablespaces either.
