On 3/11/16 1:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion on another thread about this patch. > The subject is "The plan for FDW-based sharding", but the thread kind > of got partially hijacked by this issue. The net-net of that is that > I don't think we have a clear enough idea about where we're going with > global transaction management to make it a good idea to adopt an API > like this. For example, if we later decide we want to put the > functionality in core, will we keep the hooks around for the sake of > alternative non-core implementations? I just don't believe this > technology is nearly mature enough to commit to at this point.
Ah yes, I forgot about the related discussion on that thread. Pasting here for reference: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160223164335.ga11...@momjian.us > Konstantin does not agree with my assessment, perhaps unsurprisingly. I'm certainly no stranger to feeling strongly about a patch! -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
