Thread: linux world and table partitioning
Guys, I'm going to be writing a full report on the SRA site next week about Linux World but in the mean time I wanted to ask a question about the routine of putting in new features into PostgreSQL. A lot of Oracle guys came up to the booth and one of them asked specifically about table partitioning. He asked "when is it going to get done?" and "if we want to do it why aren't we canvassing the corporate world (or a particular company) to sponsor it?". Your input would be appreciated. Robert Bernier
>A lot of Oracle guys came up to the booth and one of them asked specifically >about table partitioning. He asked "when is it going to get done?" and "if we >want to do it why aren't we canvassing the corporate world (or a particular >company) to sponsor it?". > > > Interesting. Well I can tell you that Command Prompt routinely pursues companies to help push features back into the source. The ECPG changes we submitted and some upcoming ODBC features are an example of this. However what we have found is that most people running PostgreSQL don't need table partitioning. We only have 3 customers that would benefit from it. Of course, now that I think about it I haven't talked to them about the feature --- time to make some phone calls! Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >Your input would be appreciated. > >Robert Bernier > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 07:59 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >A lot of Oracle guys came up to the booth and one of them asked specifically
> >about table partitioning. He asked "when is it going to get done?" and "if we
> >want to do it why aren't we canvassing the corporate world (or a particular
> >company) to sponsor it?".
> >
> >
> >
> Interesting. Well I can tell you that Command Prompt routinely
> pursues companies to help push features back into the source.
> The ECPG changes we submitted and some upcoming ODBC features
> are an example of this.
>
> However what we have found is that most people running PostgreSQL
> don't need table partitioning. We only have 3 customers that
> would benefit from it.
>
I think that a better survey would be the number of people
who decided that they couldn't use PostgreSQL because
they felt that they really needed table partitioning.
Tim
> Of course, now that I think about it I haven't talked to them
> about the feature --- time to make some phone calls!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
> >Your input would be appreciated.
> >
> >Robert Bernier
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
--
Timothy D. Witham - Chief Technology Officer - wookie@osdl.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
12725 SW Millikan Way - Suite 400 - Beaverton OR, 97005
(503)-906-1911 (office) (503)-702-2871 (cell)
(503)-626-2436 (fax)
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 08:48 -0800, Timothy D. Witham wrote: > On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 07:59 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >A lot of Oracle guys came up to the booth and one of them asked specifically > > >about table partitioning. He asked "when is it going to get done?" and "if we > > >want to do it why aren't we canvassing the corporate world (or a particular > > >company) to sponsor it?". > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. Well I can tell you that Command Prompt routinely > > pursues companies to help push features back into the source. > > The ECPG changes we submitted and some upcoming ODBC features > > are an example of this. > > > > However what we have found is that most people running PostgreSQL > > don't need table partitioning. We only have 3 customers that > > would benefit from it. > > > > I think that a better survey would be the number of people > who decided that they couldn't use PostgreSQL because > they felt that they really needed table partitioning. Yes, I know some of those. I will be looking to make ground on an effective solution to that for 8.1. Best Regards, Simon Riggs