On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 08:18:38AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > On 09/01/2015 02:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 09:30:41AM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > >There is no question that using XC/XL will get us to a usable solution > >faster, but see my recent post to Josh Berkus --- the additional code > >will be so burdensome that I doubt it would be accepted. If it was, I > >bet we would have considered it long ago. > > > >I think the only way we are going to get sharding into Postgres is to do > >it in a way that enhances existing Postgres capabilities. > > So that we have XL again?
Kind of. If XC/XL used FDWs I think we would try to use their code first. The issue is that FDWs didn't exist at the time. I would say our first approach might be doing XC/XL again with FDWs. -- 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
