Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date: 2015-01-05 20:02:17
Message-ID: CA+TgmobFONsLt9dhzXV6tMso=BgzRWhV8qAnx-tcEQBKzR-3Nw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> That's a laudable goal, but I would bet that nothing built on the FDW
> infrastructure will ever get there.

Why?

It would be surprising to me if, given that we have gone to some pains
to create a system that allows cross-system queries, and hopefully
eventually pushdown of quals, joins, and aggregates, we then made
sharding work in some completely different way that reuses none of
that infrastructure. But maybe I am looking at this the wrong way.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2015-01-05 20:14:11 Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-01-05 19:47:24 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers