On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:35:15PM +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > I have nothing against particular FDW advances. However, it's unclear for > me that FDW should be the only sharding approach. > It's unproven that FDW can do work that Postgres XC/XL does. With FDW we > can have some low-hanging fruits. That's good. > But it's unclear we can have high-hanging fruits (like data > redistribution) > with FDW approach. And if we can it's unclear that it would be easier than > with other approaches. > Just let's don't call this community chosen plan for implementing > sharding. > Until we have full picture we can't select one way and reject others. > > > I already several times pointed, that we need XTM to be able to continue > development in different directions, since there is no clear winner. > Moreover, > I think there is no fits-all solution and while I agree we need one built-in > in the core, other approaches should have ability to exists without patching.
Yep. I think much of what we eventually add to core will be either copied from an existing soltion, which then doesn't need to be maintained anymore, or used by existing solutions. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
