| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |
| Date: | 2016-02-26 20:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20160226200633.GA15413@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 03:30:29PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> That's not the point, though. I don't think a Postgres clone with a GTM
> solves any particular problem that's not already solved by the existing
> forks. However, if you have a clone at home and you make a GTM work on
> it, then you take the GTM as a patch and post it for discussion.
> There's no need for hooks for that. Just make sure your GTM solves the
> problem that it is supposed to solve.
>
> Excuse me if I've missed the discussion elsewhere -- why does
> PostgresPro have *two* GTMs instead of a single one?
I think the issue is that a GTM that works for a low-latency network
doesn't work well for a high-latency network, so the high-latency GTM
has fewer features and guarantees.
--
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 +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-02-26 20:12:12 | pgsql: Add isolationtester spec for old heapam.c bug |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-02-26 19:59:07 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a test framework for recovery |