| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |
| Date: | 2016-02-26 16:58:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZTuKsdx1tvn+zTGYAj=PiJ92MSOjZa+wbFwkDpzAbPJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert, this is all a game. It is a game of who wins the intellectual prize
> to whatever problem. Who gets the market or mind share and who gets to
> pretend they win the Oscar for coolest design.
JD, I don't have a horse in this race. I am not developing a GTM and
I would be quite happy never to have to develop a GTM. That doesn't
mean I think we should add these proposed hooks. I think that's just
freezing the way that potential GTMs have to interact with the rest of
the system before we actually have a solution that the community is
willing to endorse. I don't know what problem that solves.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2016-02-26 17:26:20 | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |
| Previous Message | Gabe F. Rudy | 2016-02-26 16:30:13 | Re: FDW handling count(*) through AnalyzeForeignTable or other constant time push-down |