Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

Hi,
>
> On 03/01/2016 08:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any
>>> better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we
>>> actually want and not just beat FDWs with a hammer and hope sharding
>>> will eventually emerge and call that the plan.
>>>
>>
>> I will say it again --- FDWs are the only sharding method I can think
>> of that has a chance of being accepted into Postgres core.
>>
>
>
>
> While I disagree with Simon on various things, I absolutely understand why
> he was asking about a prototype, and some sort of analysis of what usecases
> we expect to support initially/later/never, and what pieces are missing to
> get the sharding working. IIRC at the FOSDEM Dev Meeting you've claimed
> you're essentially working on a prototype - once we have the missing FDW
> pieces, we'll know if it works. I disagree that - it's not a prototype if
> it takes several years to find the outcome.
>
>
fully agree. Probably, we all need to help to build prototype in
between-releases period. I see no legal way to resolve the situation.

>
> --
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>