On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Pavan Deolasee > <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> 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. > > From my point of view, and EnterpriseDB's point of view, anything that > doesn't go into the core PostgreSQL distribution isn't really getting > us where we need to be. If there's code in XL that would be valuable > to merge into core PostgreSQL, then let's do it. If the code cannot > be used but there are lessons we can learn that will make what does go > into core PostgreSQL better, let's learn them. However, I don't think > it's serving anybody very well that we have the XC fork, and multiple > forks of the XC fork, floating around out there and people are working > on those instead of working on core PostgreSQL. The reality is that > we don't have enough brainpower to spread it across 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 > different projects and have all of them be good. The reality is, > also, that horizontal scalability isn't an optional feature. There > was a point in time at which the PostgreSQL project's official policy > on replication was that it did not belong in core. That was a bad > policy; thankfully, it was reversed, and the result was Hot Standby > and Streaming Replication, incredibly important technologies without > which we would not be where we are today. Horizontal scalability is > just as essential. > Agree with you, Robert. One lesson from XL we got is that we need testing framework for cluster, so any cluster project should at least pass functional and performance testing. XL was very easy to break and I'm wondering how many corner cases still exists. We tried several other approaches and while reading the papers was a fun, in practice we found many devil details, which made the paper be just a paper. > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
