Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Using a central coordinator also allows multi-node transaction
> control, global deadlock detection etc..

But that becomes an SPOF and then we have to configure a standby for
that. I am not saying that that's a bad design but it's not very good
for many work-loads. But it would be good if we could avoid any
"central server" in this configuration.

>
> And that is why both XL and "FDW approach" rely on a central coordinator.

I don't think we ever specified that "FDW approach" "relies" on a
central coordinator. One could configure and setup a cluster with
multiple coordinators using FDWs.

>
> FDWs alone are not enough. It is clear that some more tight coupling
> is required to get things to work well. For example, supporting SQL
> query plans that allow for redistribution of data for joins.

I think partitioning + FDW provide basic infrastructure for
distributing data, planning queries working with such data. We need
more glue to support node management, cluster configuration. So, I
agree with your statement. But I think it was clear from the beginning
that we need more than FDW and partitioning.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company