On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:08:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 09:53:57AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Well, I have had many such discussions with XC/XL folks, and that was my > > opinion. I have seen almost no public discussion about this because the > > idea had almost no chance of success. If it was possible, someone would > > have already suggested it on this list. > > > > > > Or perhaps people invested in this area had other obligations or lacked > > motivation and/or time to work to push up for things in core. That's not > > possible to know, and what is done is done. > > Well, I have talked to everyone privately about this, and concluded that > while horizontal scalability/sharding is useful, it is unlikely that the > code volume of something like XC or XL would be accepted into the > community, and frankly, now that we have FDWs, it is hard to imagine why > we would _not_ go in the FDW direction.
Actually, there was hope that XC or XL would get popular enough that it would justify adding their code into community Postgres, but that never happened.
AFAIK, XC/XL has already some customers and that is an additional pressure on their development team, which is now called X2. I don't exactly know how internal Huawei's MPPDB is connected to XC/XL.
We need community test suite for cluster and our company is working on this. It's non-trivial work, but community will never accepts any cluster solution without thorough testing of functionality and performance. Our XC/XL experience was not good.
