Re: linux world and table partitioning

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Timothy D(dot) Witham" <wookie(at)osdl(dot)org>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Bernier <robert(dot)bernier5(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: linux world and table partitioning
Date: 2005-02-21 22:43:13
Message-ID: 1109025793.3801.139.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Diogo Biazus 2005-02-22 03:00:52 new brazilian site
Previous Message Robby Russell 2005-02-21 18:25:46 Re: MySQL to PostgreSQL movement