Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding

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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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 +