Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Date: 2016-03-22 18:42:25
Message-ID: 56F19211.2020804@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On 03/22/2016 11:33 AM, Thom Brown wrote:

>> BDR or PgLogical or Native Partitioning or Federation/Sharding.
>
> The partitioning work is nice, but isn't that really just a way of
> making partitioning easier?

No, we don't at least not completely. Two simple, required problems we
don't solve:

Primary Keys
Foreign Keys

> We already have partitioning. We never
> had parallelism.

But we should of, it is an architectural limitation we are fixing one
that is largely transparent and invisible to every user. Partitioning is
a user/dba space thing that people will see and will actively use.

>
> It could be argued we also have sharding with foreign table inheritance.
>
> So really, it's BDR that's being argued as the reason for the big
> jump, but then, what percentage of users will that be a big thing for?

# of users is irrelevant (There are far more people NOT using JSON than
there are that do. Guess what people talk about?)

# of people talking about it is.

Sincerely,

jD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-03-22 18:42:35 Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2016-03-22 18:38:33 Re: 9.6 -> 10.0