|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||"Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Global snapshots|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 05:51:21PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I feel if Sawada-San or someone involved in another patch also once
> studies this approach and try to come up with some form of comparison
> then we might be able to make better decision. It is possible that
> there are few good things in each approach which we can use.
Agreed. Postgres-XL code is under the Postgres license:
Postgres-XL is released under the PostgreSQL License, a liberal Open
Source license, similar to the BSD or MIT licenses.
and even says they want it moved into Postgres core:
Postgres-XL is a massively parallel database built on top of,
and very closely compatible with PostgreSQL 9.5 and its set of advanced
features. Postgres-XL is fully open source and many parts of it will
feed back directly or indirectly into later releases of PostgreSQL, as
we begin to move towards a fully parallel sharded version of core PostgreSQL.
so we should understand what can be used from it.
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2020-06-22 15:13:20||Re: suggest to rename enable_incrementalsort|
|Previous Message||Justin Pryzby||2020-06-22 15:06:30||Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk|