From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Mason S <masonlists(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |
Date: | 2015-09-01 21:53:47 |
Message-ID: | 20150901215347.GA27332@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 08:18:38AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On 09/01/2015 02:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 09:30:41AM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>
> >There is no question that using XC/XL will get us to a usable solution
> >faster, but see my recent post to Josh Berkus --- the additional code
> >will be so burdensome that I doubt it would be accepted. If it was, I
> >bet we would have considered it long ago.
> >
> >I think the only way we are going to get sharding into Postgres is to do
> >it in a way that enhances existing Postgres capabilities.
>
> So that we have XL again?
Kind of. If XC/XL used FDWs I think we would try to use their code
first. The issue is that FDWs didn't exist at the time. I would say
our first approach might be doing XC/XL again with FDWs.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2015-09-01 21:58:18 | Re: Unicode mapping scripts cleanup |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-09-01 21:29:52 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |