On Mar 3, 2016 4:47 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > If FDWs existed then Postgres XC/XL were being developed then I believe
> > would try to build full-featured prototype of FDW based sharding. If
> > prototype succeed then we could make a full roadmap.
> Speaking here with my XC hat, that's actually the case. A couple of
> years back when I worked on it, there were discussions about reusing
> FDW routines for the purpose of XC, which would have been roughly
> reusing postgres_fdw + the possibility to send XID, snapshot and
> transaction timestamp to the remote nodes after getting that from the
> GTM (global transaction manager ensuring global data visibility and
> consistency), and have the logic for query pushdown in the FDW itself
> when planning query on what would have been roughly foreign tables
> (not entering in the details here, those would have not been entirely
> foreign tables). At this point the global picture was not completely
> set, XC being based on 9.1~9.2 and the FDW base routines were not as
> extended as they are now. As history has told, this global picture has
> never showed up, though it would should XC have been merged with 9.3.
> The point is that XC would have moved as using the FDW approach, as a
> set of plugins.
> This was a reason behind this email of 2013 on -hackers actually:

Good to remember!

> Michael
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to