I'm not averse to making the "connect to the remote nodes" part of this solution use something other than the FDW infrastructure at some point in time if somebody's prepared to build something better. On the other hand, I think it's extremely clear that the FDW infrastructure has a large amount of potential upon which we have thoroughly failed to capitalize. Patches have already been written for UPDATE/DELETE pushdown and for join pushdown.
Will pushing down writes (Update/Delete) sufficient to maintain sane locking behaviour and deadlock detection that can occur during writes on multiple shards? For example it could easily be the case where a single Update statement could effect multiple shards and cause deadlock due to waits across the nodes. Now unless we have some distributed lock manager or some other way to know the information of locks that happens across shards, it could be difficult to detect deadlocks.
I wonder if Ashutosh's atomic foreign transactions patch would address any issues inherent in such cases...
The UPDATE/DELETE pushdown, which I've proposed, would ensure the sane behaviour for inherited UPDATEs/DELETEs, as existing non-pushed-down UPDATE/DELETE does, because inheritance_planner guarantees that all backends lock inheritance children in the same order to avoid needless deadlocks.
Will it be able to do it for row level locks, row level locking occurs
during updation of a row, so will it be possible to ensure the order of
locks on rows?
Will it handle deadlocks across different table partitions. Consider
