From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AXLE Plans for 9.5 and 9.6 |
Date: | 2014-04-22 17:02:59 |
Message-ID: | 5356A0C3.3040804@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/22/2014 06:39 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I agree, and indeed that was something like my first reaction to hearing
> about this development - FDW seems like a very odd way to handle this.
> But the notion of builtin columnar storage suggests to me that we really
> need first to tackle how various storage engines might be incorporated
> into Postgres. I know this has been a bugbear for many years, but maybe
> now with serious proposals for alternative storage engines on the
> horizon we can no longer afford to put off the evil day when we grapple
> with it.
Yes. *IF* PostgreSQL already supported alternate storage, then the
Citus folks might have released their CStore as a storage plugin instead
of an FDW. However, if they'd waited for pluggable storage, they'd
still be waiting.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-04-22 17:03:49 | Re: RFC: Async query processing |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-04-22 16:00:23 | Re: Implied BETWEEN from join quals |