Re: RFC: Very large scale postgres support

I always enjoy how everyone wants to talk about using different solutions
prior to understanding the complete problem. I would say that a *real* issue
is any perceived issue whether a current solution exists or not. If current
solutions are applicable and would work then great we have all gained;
however, if in fact it is necessary to add the additional functionality to
Postgres then so be it. But none of this can be decided until the complete
problem and hence the requirements are understood. My impression of the
Postgres project has always been that of a high end database system that is
endeavoring to become a component of critical enterprise systems. If this is
not true or as a group we are going to keep placing these scalability issues
aside then this will never be achieved and those of us who want Postgres to
play a more important role for our corporate systems will have no choice but
to go somewhere else.

I understand your position Andreas and respect your opinion; maybe what I
have identified as requirements is what you are specifying as *real* issues.
I hope so, because I to would like to avoid unnecessary dbms efforts. But
from what I understand of Alex's problem and more specifically mine, adding
another layer at the organizational/app level will not provide the level of
functionality that is required.

Regards,

Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:54 AM
To: Keith Bottner
Cc: 'Alex J. Avriette'; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RFC: Very large scale postgres support

Keith Bottner wrote:

>Alex,
>
>I agree that this is something that is worth spending time on. This
>resembles the Oracle RAC (Real Application Cluster). While other people
>may feel that the amount of data is unreasonable I have a similar
>problem that will only be solved using such a solution.
>
>In regards to how your database is designed? Who cares? This is an RFC
>for a general discussion on how to design this level of functionality
>into Postgres.
>

IMHO a general discussion isn't too helpful, you might be discussing
stuff that's never needed for PostgreSQL. Different database systems
give different solutions to the same problem, as you might see from e.g.
table partition discussions, which where initiated by Oracle-originating
people.
There still might be weaknesses in pgsql, but to identify them, *real*
issues need to be discussed. This is necessary to avoid major
hardware/software dbms efforts that might well be replaced by
organizational/app level tools.

Regards,
Andreas