On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:02:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:29AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > It's never been our policy to try to include major projects in single code
> > > drops. Any move of XL/XC code into PostgreSQL core would need to be done 
> > > piece
> > > by piece across many releases. XL is definitely too big for the elephant 
> > > to eat
> > > in one mouthful.
> > 
> > Is there any plan to move the XL/XC code into Postgres?  If so, I have
> > not heard of it.  I thought everyone agreed it was too much code change,
> > which is why it is a separate code tree.  Is that incorrect?
> Yes, I think that's incorrect.
> What was said, as I understood it, is that Postgres-XL is too big to
> merge in a single commit -- just like merging BDR would have been.
> Indulge me while I make a parallel with BDR for a bit.
> 2ndQuadrant never pushed for merging BDR in a single commit; what was
> done was to split it, and propose individual pieces for commit.  Many of
> these pieces are now already committed (event triggers, background
> workers, logical decoding, replication slots, and many others).  The
> "BDR patch" is now much smaller, and it's quite possible that we will
> see it merged someday.  Will it be different from what it was when the
> BDR project started, all those years ago?  You bet.  Having the
> prototype BDR initially was what allowed the whole plan to make sense,
> because it showed that the pieces interacted in the right ways to make
> it work as a whole.

Yes, that is my understanding too.

> (I'm not saying 2ndQuadrant is so wise to do things this way.  I'm
> pretty sure you can see the same thing in parallel query development,
> for instance.)
> In the same way, Postgres-XL is far too big to merge in a single commit.
> But that doesn't mean it will never be merged.  What is more likely to
> happen instead is that some pieces of it are going to be submitted
> separately for consideration.  It is a slow process, but progress is
> real and tangible.  We know this process will yield a useful outcome,

I was not aware there was any process to merge XC/XL into Postgres, at
least from the XC/XL side.  I know there is desire to take code from
XC/XL on the FDW-sharding side.

I think the most conservative merge approach is to try to enhance
existing Postgres features first (FDWs, partitioning, parallelism),
perhaps features that didn't exist at the time XC/XL were designed. If
they work, keep them and add the XC/XL-specific parts.  If the
enhance-features approach doesn't work, we then have to consider how
much additional code will be needed.  We have to evaluate this for the
FDW-based approach too, but it is likely to be smaller, which is its

> because the architecture has already proven by the existence of
> Postgres-XL itself.  It's the prototype that proves the overall design,
> even if the pieces change shape during the process.  (Really, it's way
> more than merely a prototype at this point because of how long it has
> matured.)

True, it is beyond a prototype.

> In contrast, we don't have a prototype for FDW-based sharding; as you
> admitted, there is no actual plan, other than "let's push FDWs in this
> direction and hope that sharding will emerge".  We don't really know
> what pieces we need or how will they interact with each other; we have a
> vague idea of a direction but there's no clear path forward.  As the
> saying goes, if you don't know where you're going, you will probably end
> up somewhere else.

I think I have covered that already.

  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