On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Hi, > > On 03/01/2016 08:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> >>> Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any >>> better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we >>> actually want and not just beat FDWs with a hammer and hope sharding >>> will eventually emerge and call that the plan. >>> >> >> I will say it again --- FDWs are the only sharding method I can think >> of that has a chance of being accepted into Postgres core. >> > > > > While I disagree with Simon on various things, I absolutely understand why > he was asking about a prototype, and some sort of analysis of what usecases > we expect to support initially/later/never, and what pieces are missing to > get the sharding working. IIRC at the FOSDEM Dev Meeting you've claimed > you're essentially working on a prototype - once we have the missing FDW > pieces, we'll know if it works. I disagree that - it's not a prototype if > it takes several years to find the outcome. > > fully agree. Probably, we all need to help to build prototype in between-releases period. I see no legal way to resolve the situation. > > -- > Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
