Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't think I necessarily agree with that. Transaction management
is such a fundamental part of the system that I think making it
pluggable is going to be really hard. I understand that you've done
several implementations based on your proposed API, and that's good as
far as it goes, but how do we know that's really going to be general
enough for what other people might need? And what makes us think we
really need multiple transaction managers, anyway? Even writing one
good distributed transaction manager seems like a really hard project
- why would we want to write two or three or five?

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