On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 09:30:41AM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > My worry is that if we start implementing them again from scratch, it will > take > a few years before we get them in a usable state. What XC/XL lacked is > probably > a Robert Haas or a Tom Lane who could look at the work and suggest major > edits. > If that had happened, the quality of the product could have been much better > today. I don't mean to derate the developers who worked on XC/XL, but there is > no harm in accepting that if someone with a much better understanding of the > whole system was part of the team, that would have positively impacted the > project. Is that an angle worth exploring? Does it make sense to commit some > more resources to say XC or XL and try to improve the quality of the product > even further? To be honest, XL is in far far better shape (haven't really > tried > XC in a while) and some more QA/polishing can make it production ready much > sooner.
There is no question that using XC/XL will get us to a usable solution faster, but see my recent post to Josh Berkus --- the additional code will be so burdensome that I doubt it would be accepted. If it was, I bet we would have considered it long ago. I think the only way we are going to get sharding into Postgres is to do it in a way that enhances existing Postgres capabilities. (I think we got a little too cute in enhancing existing Postgres capabilities to add partitioning, and I think we need to fix that. Hopefully we don't do the same thing with sharding.) -- 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
