On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Using a central coordinator also allows multi-node transaction > control, global deadlock detection etc..
But that becomes an SPOF and then we have to configure a standby for that. I am not saying that that's a bad design but it's not very good for many work-loads. But it would be good if we could avoid any "central server" in this configuration. > > And that is why both XL and "FDW approach" rely on a central coordinator. I don't think we ever specified that "FDW approach" "relies" on a central coordinator. One could configure and setup a cluster with multiple coordinators using FDWs. > > FDWs alone are not enough. It is clear that some more tight coupling > is required to get things to work well. For example, supporting SQL > query plans that allow for redistribution of data for joins. I think partitioning + FDW provide basic infrastructure for distributing data, planning queries working with such data. We need more glue to support node management, cluster configuration. So, I agree with your statement. But I think it was clear from the beginning that we need more than FDW and partitioning. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
