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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
