Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:41:00PM +1000, Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:17 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:28:58PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:34 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > >
> > > What we don't want to do is to add a bunch of sharding-specific code
> > > without knowing which workloads it benefits, and how many of our users
> > > will actually use sharding.  Some projects have it done that, and it
> > > didn't end well since they then had a lot of product complexity with
> > > little user value.
> >
> > Key features from my perspective:
> > *) fdw in parallel.  how do i do it today? ghetto implemented parallel
> > queries with asynchronous dblink
>
> Andres has outlined what needs to be done here:
>
>         https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
> 20180525033538.6ypfwcqcxce6zkjj%40alap3.anarazel.de 
>
>
> Sorry if this was already been discussed in up-thread.
>
> Just I would like to bring out idea scale out by adding many instances that
> can share the lock and buffer pool manager with all the instances with
> the help of Remote direct memory access.
>
> By adding pluggable buffer pool and lock manager, how about adding
> many instances and all share the buffers using RDMA to provide
> better scaling with shared everything.
>
> Currently I didn't know have any idea whether is it possible or not and also
> the problems in using RDMA. 
>
> Just want to check whether is it worth idea to consider in supporting scale
> out?

Yes, Robert Haas did mention this. It might be something we consider
much later.

--
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. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +