On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 02:48:31PM -0400, Mason S wrote: > I assume that future work around PG sharding probably would be more likely to > be accepted with the FDW approach. One could perhaps work on pushing down > joins, aggregates and order by, then look at any optimizations gained if code > is moved outside of FDW. It would make sense if some kind of generic > optimization for foreign tables for SQL-based sources could be leveraged > across > all databases, rather than having to re-implement for each FDW. > > There are different approaches and related features that may need to be > improved. > > Do we want multiple copies of shards, like the pg_shard approach? Or keep > things simpler and leave it up to the DBA to add standbys?
I agree with all of the above. > Do we want to leverage table inheritance? If so, we may want to spend time > improving performance for when the number of shards becomes large with what > currently exists. If using table inheritance, we could add the ability to > specify what node (er, foreign server) the subtable lives on. We could create > top level sharding expressions that allow these to be implicitly created. > > Should we allow arbitrary expressions for shards, not just range, list and > hash? > > Maybe the most community-acceptable approach would look something like I think everyone agrees that our current partitioning setup is just too verbose and error-prone for users, and needs a simpler interface, and one that can be better optimized internally. I assume FDW-based sharding will benefit from that work as well. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
