On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I agree with that. I am utterly mystified by why Bruce keeps > beating this drum, and am frankly pretty annoyed about it. In the > first place, he seems to think that he invented the idea of using FDWs > for sharding in PostgreSQL, but I don't think that's true. I think it > was partly my idea, and partly something that the NTT folks have been > working on for years (cf, e.g., > cb1ca4d800621dcae67ca6c799006de99fa4f0a5). As far as I understand it, > Bruce came in near the end of that conversation and now wants to claim > credit for something that doesn't really exist yet and, to the extent > that it does exist, wasn't even his idea.
I think that it's easy to have the same idea as someone else independently. I've had that happen several times myself; ideas that other people had that I felt I could have easily had myself, or did in fact have. Most of the ideas that I have are fairly heavily based on known techniques. I don't think that I've ever creating a PostgreSQL feature that was in some way truly original, except perhaps for some aspects of how UPSERT works. Who cares whose idea FDW sharding was? It matters not a whit. It probably independently occurred to several people that the FDW interface could be built to support horizontal sharding more directly. The idea almost suggests itself. > EnterpriseDB *does* have a plan to try to continue enhancing foreign > data wrappers so that you can run queries against foreign tables and > get reasonable plans, something that currently isn't true. I haven't > heard anybody objecting to that, and I don't expect to hear anybody > objecting to that, because it's hard to imagine why you wouldn't want > queries against foreign data wrappers to produce better plans than > they do today. At worst, you might think it doesn't matter either > way, but actually, I think there are a substantial number of people > who are pretty happy about join pushdown and I expect that when and if > we get aggregate pushdown working there will be even more people who > are happy about that. I think that that's Bruce's point, to a large degree. >> Alternately, you can just work on the individual FDW features, which >> *everyone* thinks are a good idea, and when most of them are done, FDW-based >> scaleout will be such an obvious solution that nobody will argue with it. > > That's exactly what the people at EnterpriseDB who are actually doing > work in this area are attempting to do. Meanwhile, there's also > Bruce, who is neither doing nor planning to do any work in this area, > nor advising either EnterpriseDB or the PostgreSQL community to > undertake any particular project, but who *is* making it sound like > there is a super sekret plan that nobody else gets to see. Is he? I didn't get that impression. I think Bruce is trying to facilitate discussion, which can sometimes require being a bit provocative. I think you're being quite unfair, and mischaracterizing his words. I've heard Bruce talk about horizontal scaling on several occasions, including at a talk in San Francisco about a year ago, and I just thought it was Bruce being Bruce -- primarily, a facilitator. I think that he is not especially motivated by taking credit either here or in general, and not at all by taking credit for other people's work. It's not hard to get agreement about something abstract, like the general idea of a distributed transaction manager. I fear that any particular detailed interpretation of what that phrase means will be very hard to get accepted into PostgreSQL. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
