On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 02:09:34PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > It's a valid approach, but it's one that means it's unlikely to be practical > to > just cherry-pick a few features. There's sure to be a lot of divergence > between > the codebases, and no doubt Greenplum will have implemented infrastructure > that > overlaps with or duplicates things since added in newer PostgreSQL releases - > dynamic shmem, bgworkers, etc. Even if it were feasible to pull in their > features with the underlying infrastructure it'd create a significant > maintenance burden. So I expect there'd need to be work done to move things > over to use PostgreSQL features where they exist.
I think we would need to create a team to learn the Greenplum code and move over what is reasonable. My guess is there is no desire in our community to totally merge or maintain the Greenplum code --- of course, that is just a guess. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
