Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I've got to say that this is somewhat reminicient of the discussions around
> in-core pooling, where argument 1 is applied to justify excluding pooling
> from core/contrib.
>
> I don't have a strong position on whether a DTM should be in core or not as
> I haven't done enough work in the area. I do think it's interesting to
> strongly require that a DTM be in core while we also reject things like
> pooling that are needed by a large proportion of users.

I don't remember this discussion, but I don't think I feel differently
about either of these two issues. I'm not opposed to having some
hooks in core to make it easier to build a DTM, but I'm not convinced
that these hooks are the right hooks or that the design underlying
those hooks is correct. And, eventually, I would like to see a DTM in
core or contrib so that it can be accessible to everyone relatively
easily. Now, on connection pooling, I am similarly not opposed to
having some well-designed hooks, but I also think in the long run it
would be better for some improvements in this area to be part of core.
None of that means I would support any particular hook proposal, of
course.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company