Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Oleg Bartunov
Subject Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding
Date
Msg-id CAF4Au4wPJ1FPU-QV_n0o0+PbOz3kzkJO=rrvFf5SA9xURiLwYw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:



3.  I have tried to encourage others to get involved, with limited
success.  I do think the FDW is perhaps the only reasonable way to get
_built-in_ sharding.  The external sharding solutions are certainly
viable, but external.  It is possible we will make all the FDW
improvements, find out it doesn't work, but find out the improvements
allow us to go in another direction.

I remember last summer emails and we really wanted to participate in development, but it happens all slots were occupied by edb and ntt people. We wanted to work on distributed transactions and proposed our XTM.  Our feeling that time from discussion was that we were invited, but all doors were closed. It was very bad experience. Hopefully, we understand our misunderstanding.
 

There seems to be serious interest in how this idea came about, so let
me say what I remember.

I think the idea was so obvious, so let's don't discuss this.
 

As for why there is so much hostility, I think this is typical for any
ill-defined feature development.  There was simmering hostility to the
Windows port and pg_upgrade for many years because those projects were
not easy to define and risky, and had few active developers.  The
agreement was that work could continue as long as destabilization wasn't
introduced.  Ideally everything would have a well-defined plan, it is
sometimes hard to do.  Similar to our approach on parallelism (which is
also super-important and doesn't many active developers), sometimes you
just need to create infrastructure and see how well it solves problems.



Our XTM is the yet another example of infrastructure we need to work on clustering. Should we wait other smart guy starts thinking on distributed transactions ?  We described in https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/DTM our  API, which is just a wrapper on existed functions, but it will allow us and fortunately others to play with their ideas.  We did several prototypes, including FDW, to demonstrate viability of API, and plan to continue our work on built-in high availability, multi-master.  Of course, there will be a lot to learn, but it will be much easier if XTM will exists not as separate patch, which is really small.
 

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription                             +


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical decoding slots can go backwards when used from SQL, docs are wrong
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Improving replay of XLOG_BTREE_VACUUM records