On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:15:27AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-31 20:54:51 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, we already have a list of things we need to add to FDWs to make them
> > work, and Citus Data has provided a document of more things that are
> > needed, https://goo.gl/vJWF85. I am not sure how much bigger a red flag
> > you want to confirm that everyone agrees that major FDW improvements are
> > a requirement for this.
>
> Several people saying that the FDW infrastructure isn't sufficient right
> now is pretty far from implying that all of them agree that the FDW API
> is the way to go.
>
> I'm not sure myself. If it works out it's going to save us some work and
> make it more realistic to get there sometime not too far off. But I'm
> afraid that the resulting system will feel like our current partitioning
> implemenentation. Yes, it kinda works, but it's hard to get started, it
> doesn't support too many features and you're kind afraid your relatives
> will see what you've done.
Well, reworking our partitioning system is one of the things required
for sharding, so at least we will clean up one mess while we create
another. ;-)
Seem my post to Josh Berkus just now --- I think if we don't use FDWs,
that sharding is such a limited use-case that we will not implement it
inside of Postgres.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +