On 4/25/07, Gustavo Tonini <gustavotonini(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/24/07, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 4/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Oh, you're talking about distributing partitions across different nodes
> > > and parallelizing queries. No, we don't do that today.
> > PL/Proxy actually works like that, only in smaller scope -
> > for function calls only.
> I think that proposed funcionalities cannot be implemented in a PL scope...
Oh, sure. PL/proxy just proves if you can adhere to specific coding-style
- all db access goes via functions - you can solve the problem today,
with simple tools. You dont need even PL/proxy for that, any PL that
can do connections (plpython, plperl, ..) can be used for proxy functions.
PL/proxy just makes it so much easier.
Function based DB API can give additional benefits:
- easy upgradeablility
- easy to change db structure without apps knowing
- easy to monitor/audit
- if database hits hardware limits, you can replace all functions
with PLproxy functions and spread data over several partitions.
I think most OLTP apps can be designed around db-functions, with OLAP
it will be bit harder, but there it is less critical also.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2007-04-27 11:22:22|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding unnecessary reads in recovery|
|Previous:||From: rupesh bajaj||Date: 2007-04-27 11:01:48|
|Subject: When the locially dropped column is also physically dropped|