On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:22:20PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Sorry, but based on this plan it is possible to make a conclusion
> that there are only two possible cluster solutions for Postgres:
> XC/XL and FDW-based.  From my point of view there are  much more
> possible alternatives.
> Our main idea with XTM (eXtensible Transaction Manager API) was to
> make it possible to develop cluster solutions for Postgres as
> extensions without patching code of Postgres core. And FDW is one of
> the mechanism which makes it possible to reach this goal.

Yes, this is a good example of code reuse.

> IMHO it will be hard to implement efficient execution of complex
> OLAP queries (including cross-node joins  and aggregation) within
> FDW paradigm. It will be necessary to build distributed query
> execution plan and coordinate it execution at cluster nodes. And
> definitely we need specialized optimizer for distributed queries.
> Right now solution of the problem are provided by XL and Greenplum,
> but both are forks of Posrgres with a lot of changes in Postgres
> core. The challenge is to provide the similar functionality, but at
> extension level (using custom nodes, pluggable transaction manager,
> ...).


> But, as you noticed,  complex OLAP is just one of the scenarios and
> this is not the only possible way of using clusters. In some cases
> FDW-based sharding can be quite efficient. Or pg_shard approach
> which also adds sharding at extension level and in some aspects is
> more flexible than FDW-based solution. Not all scenarios require
> global transaction manager. But if one need global consistency, then
> XTM API allows to provide ACID for both approaches (and not only for
> them).


> We currently added to commitfest our XTM patch together with
> postgres_fdw patch integrating timestamp-based DTM implementation in
> postgres_fdw. It illustrates how global consistency canbe reached
> for FDW-based sharding.
> If this XTM patch will be committed, then in 9.6 we will have wide
> flexibility to play with different distributed transaction managers.
> And it can be used for many cluster solutions.
> IMHO it will be very useful to extend your classification of cluster
> use cases, more precisely  formulate demands in all cases,
> investigate  how them can be covered by existed cluster solutions
> for Postgres and which niches are still vacant. We are currently
> continue work on "multimaster" - some more convenient alternative to
> hot-standby replication. Looks like PostgreSQL is missing some
> product providing functionality similar to Oracle RAC or MySQL
> Gallera. It is yet another direction of cluster development for
> PostgreSQL.  Let's be more open and flexible.

Yes, I listed only the workloads I could think of.  It would be helpful
to list more workloads and start to decide what can be accomplished with
each approach.  I don't even know all the workloads supported by the
sharding forks of Postgres.

  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