On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > As far as (3) is concerned, why > > wouldn't we use the foreign data wrapper interface, and specifically > > postgres_fdw? That interface was designed for the explicit purpose of > > allowing access to remote data sources, and a lot of work has been put > > into it, so it would be highly surprising if we decided to throw that > > away and develop something completely new from the ground up. > > Well, query hooks are also a capability which we already have, and is > mature. Citus has already posted about why they chose to use them instead. > > As long as you recognize that the FDW API (not just the existing fdws) > will need to expand to make this work, it's a viable path.
Uh, we already have a list of things we need to add to FDWs to make them work, and Citus Data has provided a document of more things that are needed, https://goo.gl/vJWF85. I am not sure how much bigger a red flag you want to confirm that everyone agrees that major FDW improvements are a requirement for this. My hope is that many FDW improvements will benefit sharding and non-sharding workloads, but I bet some improvements are going to be sharding-specific. I would say we are still in the exploratory stage, but based on the number of people who care about this feature and want to be involved, I think we are off to a very good start. :-) -- 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
