Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> This does not sound like Bruce at all. Bruce is a lot of things, stubborn,
> sometimes temperamental, a lot of times like you... a hot head but he does
> not take credit for other people's work in my experience.

On the whole, Bruce is a much nicer guy than I am. But I can't see
eye to eye with him on this. I admit I may be being unfair to him,
but I'm telling it like I see it. Like I do.

> Even if there was, so what? IF EDB wants to have a secret plan to push a lot
> of cool features to .Org, who cares? In the end, it all has to go through
> peer review and the meritocracy anyway.

I would just like to say that if I or my employer ever get accused of
having a nefarious plan, and somehow I get to pick *which* nefarious
plan I or my employer is to be accused of having, "a secret plan to
push a lot of cool features to .Org" sounds like a good one for me to
pick, especially since, yeah, we have that plan. We plan to (try to)
push a lot of cool features to .Org. We - or at least I - do not plan
to do it in a way that is anything but respectful to the community
process. Specifically, and in no particular order, we plan to
continue contributing performance and scalability enhancements,
improvements to parallel query, and FDW-related improvements, just as
we have for 9.6. We may also try to contribute other stuff that we
think will be cool and benefit PostgreSQL. Suggestions are welcome.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company