Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Necati Batur escribió:
>> All I want to contribute to the project a liitle. I do not claim that I can
>> actually solve all the issues about partitioning.
>> Of course there are lots of ideas ,some looks pretty easy however, the
>> distribution issue seems too attractive to me that I am dying to work on.
> Partitioning is an issue that has had hundreds if not thousands of
> emails written about it. I suggest you have a look at the archives for
> previous discussions about how to tackle it. If you think that you can
> attack a small portion of the problem in a nonconnected way, prepare to
> be disappointed.
> The TODO list contains pointers to the previous discussions.
I guess a GSoC of reasonable size would be to define a spec for how to
implement partitioning in PostgreSQL with a sound and accepted proposal
on independent steps to contribute separately, in order to reach the
full implementation in an incremental fashion and by different hackers.
Then you could pick up one of those items. By then I mean after the
summary and the plan both have been accepted by core people and by
contributors who said in the past they wanted to spend precious hours on
But I don't know if a GSoC can be completed without even coding.
Please, if this first step is in good shape, give us pointers to a
current document with the details, I'd happily stand corrected!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: pavelbaros||Date: 2010-04-09 20:36:04|
|Subject: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL|
|Previous:||From: Yeb Havinga||Date: 2010-04-09 20:01:38|
|Subject: Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces|