On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:35:15PM +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>     I have nothing against particular FDW advances. However, it's unclear for
>     me that FDW should be the only sharding approach.
>     It's unproven that FDW can do work that Postgres XC/XL does. With FDW we
>     can have some low-hanging fruits. That's good.
>     But it's unclear we can have high-hanging fruits (like data 
> redistribution)
>     with FDW approach. And if we can it's unclear that it would be easier than
>     with other approaches.
>     Just let's don't call this community chosen plan for implementing 
> sharding.
>     Until we have full picture we can't select one way and reject others.
> I already several times pointed, that we need XTM to be able to continue
> development in different directions, since there is no clear winner.  
> Moreover,
> I think there is no fits-all  solution and while I agree we need one built-in
> in the core, other approaches should have ability to exists without patching.

Yep.  I think much of what we eventually add to core will be either
copied from an existing soltion, which then doesn't need to be
maintained anymore, or used by existing solutions.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to