On 12/2/21 19:44, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:26 AM Álvaro Hernández <aht@ongres.com> wrote:
>> As I stated in the mentioned post, I believe Babelfish is a very
>> welcomed addition to the PostgreSQL ecosystem. It allows PostgreSQL to
>> reach other users, other use cases, other markets; something which in my
>> opinion PostgreSQL really needs to extend its reach, to become a more
>> relevant player in the database market. The potential is there,
>> specially given all the extensibility points that PostgreSQL already
>> has, which are unparalleled in the industry.
> Let's assume for the sake of argument that your analysis of the
> benefits is 100% correct -- let's take it for granted that Babelfish
> is manna from heaven. It's still not clear that it's worth embracing
> Babelfish in the way that you have advocated.
>
> We simply don't know what the costs are. Because there is no source
> code available. Maybe that will change tomorrow or next week, but as
> of this moment there is simply nothing substantive to evaluate.
I'm sure if we embrace an open and honest conversation, we will be
able to figure out what the integration costs are even before the source
code gets published. As I said, this goes beyond the very technical
detail of source code integration. Waiting until the source code is
published is a bit chicken-and-egg (as I presume the source will morph
towards convergence if there's work that may be started, even if it is
just for example for protocol extensibility).
I'm sure this can be also discussed at an architectural level,
getting an analysis of what parts of PostgreSQL would be changed, what
extension mechanisms are required, what is the volume of the project,
and many others.
Álvaro
--
Alvaro Hernandez
-----------
OnGres
