On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 02:02:44PM -0500, Bruce wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 07:56:58PM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > Note that I am not saying that other discussed approaches are any > > better, I am saying that we should know approximately what we > > actually want and not just beat FDWs with a hammer and hope sharding > > will eventually emerge and call that the plan. > > I will say it again --- FDWs are the only sharding method I can think of > that has a chance of being accepted into Postgres core. It is a plan, > and if it fails, it fails. If is succeeds, that's good. What more do > you want me to say? I know of no other way to answer the questions you > asked above.
I guess all I can say is that if FDWs existed when Postgres XC/XL were being developed, that they likely would have been used or at least considered. I think we are basically making that attempt now.
If FDWs existed then Postgres XC/XL were being developed then I believe they would try to build full-featured prototype of FDW based sharding. If this prototype succeed then we could make a full roadmap.
For now, we don't have a full roadmap, we have only some pieces. This is why people doubt. When you're speaking about advances that are natural to FDW, then no problem, nobody is against FDW advances. However, other things are unclear.
You can try to build full-featured prototype to convince people. Despite it would take some resources it will save more resources because it would save us from errors.