On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 02:02:44PM -0500, Bruce wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any > > better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we > > actually want and not just beat FDWs with a hammer and hope sharding > > will eventually emerge and call that the plan. > > I will say it again --- FDWs are the only sharding method I can think of > that has a chance of being accepted into Postgres core. It is a plan, > and if it fails, it fails. If is succeeds, that's good. What more do > you want me to say? I know of no other way to answer the questions you > asked above.
I guess all I can say is that if FDWs existed when Postgres XC/XL were being developed, that they likely would have been used or at least considered. I think we are basically making that attempt now. -- 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
