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?
This reads like: We don't want to merge a bunch of code that a non .Org
project wrote. Instead we want to write a bunch of code that will all
but duplicate what that other project wrote because.... ?
Don't get me wrong, I am all about this goal and if XL truly doesn't fit
that's cool but I think the idea that our project will somehow reinvent
a better wheel is naive.
> (I think we got a little too cute in enhancing existing Postgres
> capabilities to add partitioning, and I think we need to fix that.
> Hopefully we don't do the same thing with sharding.)
Not cute, lazy. We implemented the barest minimum within our existing
infrastructure and we have been kicking ourselves ever since.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
