Re: AXLE Plans for 9.5 and 9.6

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AXLE Plans for 9.5 and 9.6
Date: 2014-04-22 17:02:59
Message-ID: 5356A0C3.3040804@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/22/2014 06:39 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I agree, and indeed that was something like my first reaction to hearing
> about this development - FDW seems like a very odd way to handle this.
> But the notion of builtin columnar storage suggests to me that we really
> need first to tackle how various storage engines might be incorporated
> into Postgres. I know this has been a bugbear for many years, but maybe
> now with serious proposals for alternative storage engines on the
> horizon we can no longer afford to put off the evil day when we grapple
> with it.

Yes. *IF* PostgreSQL already supported alternate storage, then the
Citus folks might have released their CStore as a storage plugin instead
of an FDW. However, if they'd waited for pluggable storage, they'd
still be waiting.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2014-04-22 17:03:49 Re: RFC: Async query processing
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-04-22 16:00:23 Re: Implied BETWEEN from join quals