On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:08:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 09:53:57AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> > Well, I have had many such discussions with XC/XL folks, and that was >> > my >> > opinion. I have seen almost no public discussion about this because >> > the >> > idea had almost no chance of success. If it was possible, someone >> > would >> > have already suggested it on this list. >> > >> > >> > Or perhaps people invested in this area had other obligations or lacked >> > motivation and/or time to work to push up for things in core. That's not >> > possible to know, and what is done is done. >> >> Well, I have talked to everyone privately about this, and concluded that >> while horizontal scalability/sharding is useful, it is unlikely that the >> code volume of something like XC or XL would be accepted into the >> community, and frankly, now that we have FDWs, it is hard to imagine why >> we would _not_ go in the FDW direction. > > Actually, there was hope that XC or XL would get popular enough that it > would justify adding their code into community Postgres, but that never > happened.
Forks are aimed to die without proper maintenance resources. Still, for XC/XL, what does not help is the complication of the architecture and SPOF management, particularly thinking with the GTM that was something completely new and not well understood (there is a GTM standby but this model is weak IMO and does not scale similarly to what you get with standbys, and impacts the overall performance of the cluster). -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers