From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |
Date: | 2016-03-01 19:11:07 |
Message-ID: | 20160301191107.GA17253@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 02:02:44PM -0500, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any
> > better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we
> > actually want and not just beat FDWs with a hammer and hope sharding
> > will eventually emerge and call that the plan.
>
> I will say it again --- FDWs are the only sharding method I can think of
> that has a chance of being accepted into Postgres core. It is a plan,
> and if it fails, it fails. If is succeeds, that's good. What more do
> you want me to say? I know of no other way to answer the questions you
> asked above.
I guess all I can say is that if FDWs existed when Postgres XC/XL were
being developed, that they likely would have been used or at least
considered. I think we are basically making that attempt now.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-03-01 19:16:15 | Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates) |
Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2016-03-01 19:05:11 | Re: [REVIEW]: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |