2014-03-02 10:29 GMT+09:00 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Kohei KaiGai (kai...@kaigai.gr.jp) wrote: >> As you mentioned, it is a headache for packagers, and does not make >> sense for us if packager disabled the feature that requires proprietary >> drivers. > > No, I disagree with that. I don't expect this use-case to be very > common to begin with and telling individuals that they have to compile > it themselves is certainly not out of the question. > >> In fact, Fedora / RHEL does not admit to distribute software >> under the none open source software license. > > I'm pretty confident you can get RPMs for those distributions. > >> Obviously, nvidia's cuda >> is a library being distributed under the proprietary license, thus out of >> the scope for the Linux distributors. > > This also doesn't make any sense to me- certainly the CUDA libraries are > available under Debian derivatives, along with open-source wrappers for > them like pycuda. > >> It also leads them to turn off the >> feature that shall be linked with proprietary drivers. >> All we can do is to implement these features as extension, then offer >> an option for users to use or not to use. > > No, we can tell individuals who want it that they're going to need to > build with support for it. We don't offer OpenSSL as an extension (I > certainly wish we did- and had a way to replace it w/ GNUTLS or one of > the better licensed options). > I know there is some alternative ways. However, it requires users to take additional knowledge and setting up efforts, also loses the benefit to use distributor's Linux if alternative RPMs are required. I don't want to recommend users such a complicated setting up procedure.
>> What I'd like to implement is GPU acceleration that can perform on >> regular tables, not only foreign tables. Also, regarding to the backlog >> in the developer meeting, pluggable executor node is also required >> feature by PG-XC folks to work their project with upstream. >> I think custom-scan feature is capable to host these requirement, >> and does not prevent enhancement FDW features. > > I think you're conflating things again- while it might be possible to > use CustomScan to implement FDW join-pushdown or FDW aggregate-pushdown, > *I* don't think it's the right approach. Regarding the PG-XC > requirement, I expect they're looking for FDW join/aggregate-pushdown > and also see that it *could* be done w/ CustomScan. > The reason why I submitted the part-3 patch (that enhances postgres_fdw for remote-join using custom-scan) is easy to demonstrate the usage of join-replacement by a special scan, with minimum scale of the patch to be reviewed. If we have another idea to demonstrate it, I don't stick on the remot- join feature on foreign tables. Regarding to the PG-XC, I didn't know their exact needs because I didn't attend the cluster meeting, but the someone mentioned about pluggable plan/exec node in this context. > We could punt on the whole thing and drop in hooks which could be used > to replace everything done from the planner through to the executor and > then anyone *could* implement any of the above, and parallel query too. > That doesn't make it the right approach. > That is a problem I pointed out in the last developer meeting. Because we have no way to enhance a part of plan / exec logic by extension, extension has to replace whole of the planner / executor using hooks. It is painful for authors of extensions. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers