| From: | Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Necati Batur <necatibatur(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GSOC PostgreSQL partitioning issue |
| Date: | 2010-04-10 00:28:38 |
| Message-ID: | q2ue7e5fefd1004091728yb199cf79u717cb93ee7a415af@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> 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
> the topic.
>
> But I don't know if a GSoC can be completed without even coding.
According to the link below, GSoC proposals for documentation aren't
accepted. This probably extends to other non-coding work as well.
http://socghop.appspot.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2010/faqs#doc_proposals
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-04-10 03:53:29 | Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Joseph Adams | 2010-04-10 00:18:01 | Re: Gsoc XQuery |