On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > As far as (3) is concerned, why
> > wouldn't we use the foreign data wrapper interface, and specifically
> > postgres_fdw? That interface was designed for the explicit purpose of
> > allowing access to remote data sources, and a lot of work has been put
> > into it, so it would be highly surprising if we decided to throw that
> > away and develop something completely new from the ground up.
>
> Well, query hooks are also a capability which we already have, and is
> mature. Citus has already posted about why they chose to use them instead.
>
> As long as you recognize that the FDW API (not just the existing fdws)
> will need to expand to make this work, it's a viable path.
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.
My hope is that many FDW improvements will benefit sharding and
non-sharding workloads, but I bet some improvements are going to be
sharding-specific. I would say we are still in the exploratory stage,
but based on the number of people who care about this feature and want
to be involved, I think we are off to a very good start. :-)
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
