diff --git a/blog/2026-07-02-ivorysql-htap/index.md b/blog/2026-07-02-ivorysql-htap/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1c979ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/blog/2026-07-02-ivorysql-htap/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+---
+slug: ivorysql-htap
+title: "IvorySQL HTAP Real-Time Lakehouse Access Engine"
+authors: [陶郑]
+category: IvorySQL
+image: img/blog/covers/ivorysql-htap.png
+tags: [IvorySQL, HTAP, DuckDB, PostgreSQL, Lakehouse, Mooncake]
+---
+
+> This article is based on Tao Zheng's (IvorySQL Core Contributor) presentation at HOW 2026.
+> Video replay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GZRLCiabg
+
+## 1. The Evolution of Data Architecture
+
+### 1.1 Limitations of Traditional Architecture
+
+Business data must flow through multiple systems before analysis. Two main architectures dominate:
+
+- **Linear Architecture**: data enters transactional databases → ETL → data lake → data warehouse → AI query. Long pipeline, many processing steps.
+- **Variant Architecture**: data is written simultaneously to transactional and analytical databases, but AI queries still cross multiple systems.
+
+Both face common challenges: complex processing pipelines creating minutes-to-hours latency; data fragmentation between queries; high multi-system operational costs.
+
+### 1.2 Three Generations of Evolution
+
+- **Gen 1 (2000s — Data Warehouse)**: Designed for specific business needs, but costly to restructure when new analysis requirements emerge.
+- **Gen 2 (2010s — Data Lake)**: Reduced storage costs by storing raw data in cheap lakes, but increased pipeline complexity.
+- **Gen 3 (circa 2020 — Lakehouse)**: Merged warehouse and lake benefits, but fundamentally still a two-system combination.
+
+### 1.3 Native HTAP: The Next-Generation Architecture
+
+The latest trend is moving from "lakehouse" to "native HTAP"—storing transactional and analytical data in a single database, eliminating ETL entirely.
+
+| Dimension | Lakehouse | Native HTAP |
+|-----------|----------|-------------|
+| Storage base | Object storage | Unified high-performance storage engine |
+| Data freshness | Minutes/hours | Seconds/milliseconds |
+| Core capability | Lake + warehouse features | Database with warehouse capacity |
+
+A single database, single API for AI, no cross-database queries, lower operational costs, real-time data.
+
+## 2. Three Pain Points of Traditional Architecture in the AI Era
+
+- **Pain Point 1: Unpredictable query patterns** — Agent-generated queries are random; traditional architectures can't efficiently handle both point queries and aggregations simultaneously.
+- **Pain Point 2: Data freshness sensitivity** — ETL latency means data may change between queries, unacceptable in risk control, recommendation, and finance.
+- **Pain Point 3: Cross-system latency stacking** — When a single task requires both point queries and aggregations, cross-system latency compounds.
+
+## 3. Native HTAP: Industry Trends & IvorySQL's Positioning
+
+### 3.1 Industry Signals: Databricks' Two Key Acquisitions
+
+- **May 2025 — Acquired Neon**: Serverless PostgreSQL provider, signaling OLAP giants entering OLTP.
+- **October 2025 — Acquired Mooncake Labs**: Core project pg_mooncake embeds DuckDB's columnar engine into PostgreSQL, enabling HTAP without ETL. IvorySQL's solution is built on pg_mooncake.
+
+### 3.2 Two Gaps Left by pg_mooncake
+
+- **Gap 1: Open-source maintenance void** — Updates slowed significantly after acquisition. The community needs a vendor-independent implementation.
+- **Gap 2: Oracle migration capability gap** — pg_mooncake never considered Oracle compatibility, yet many Chinese enterprises still run core data on Oracle.
+
+### 3.3 IvorySQL's Position
+
+IvorySQL is an open-source PostgreSQL fork, community-maintained, fully PostgreSQL-compatible, with Oracle syntax, data type, and function support. Its HTAP engine:
+- Fills Gap 1: Independently maintained pg_mooncake evolution, community-driven roadmap
+- Fills Gap 2: Full HTAP capabilities in Oracle migration scenarios
+- Real-time lakehouse access engine: one dataset, two query paths, real-time availability
+
+## 4. Technical Architecture
+
+### 4.1 Row vs. Column Storage
+
+PostgreSQL uses row storage — ideal for transactions. Column storage organizes data by column — ideal for large-scale aggregation. HTAP combines both, automatically selecting the optimal execution path based on query characteristics.
+
+### 4.2 Core Architecture
+
+**Smart routing**: Embedded via PostgreSQL hooks (non-invasive), the Planner identifies query patterns and routes to row store (OLTP) or column store (OLAP).
+
+**Dual storage engines**: Row store uses PG Heap files (OLTP); column store uses DuckDB + Parquet format (OLAP).
+
+**In-memory sharing & auto-sync**: The same data is accessible through both row and column paths. Columnar data persists in Parquet format; synchronization between stores is automatic and real-time, completely transparent to the application layer.
+
+### 4.3 Why ETL is Eliminated
+
+Traditional: Database → ETL → Warehouse (minutes-to-hours delay). Native HTAP: one copy of data, two access paths — no ETL, no delay.
+
+### 4.4 Write Path & Query Routing
+
+1. Application SQL: standard SQL, no modifications needed
+2. PostgreSQL query layer: Parser → Planner → Executor, pg_mooncake embedded via hooks
+3. Auto routing: Planner identifies query type, auto-selects optimal path
+4. Dual engine execution: row → PG Heap; column → DuckDB + Parquet
+5. Auto sync: data remains unified across both stores
+
+## 5. Application Scenarios
+
+### Scenario 1: Oracle Data Warehouse Migration
+
+Oracle types, syntax, and function behaviors are fully compatible. HTAP capabilities arrive with migration — no need to rebuild the analytics pipeline.
+
+### Scenario 2: AI Agent Mixed Queries
+
+Point queries go through row store, aggregations through column store — one connection for everything. Real-time consistent data, improved Agent response and decision quality.
+
+### Scenario 3: Real-Time Risk Control
+
+Transactions written while column store queries simultaneously. Risk rules trigger in real time, dropping from minutes to sub-second latency.
+
+## 6. Open Source Release Plan
+
+- **Release**: Planned alongside IvorySQL 6.0
+- **Components**: Three core modules — ivy_mooncake, ivy_duckdb, ivy_moonlink
+
+> Note: A preview version [1.0 beta1](https://github.com/IvorySQL/ivy_mooncake/releases/tag/IvorySQL_1.0_beta1) is already available.
+
+## 7. Summary
+
+The IvorySQL HTAP Real-Time Lakehouse Access Engine is a strategic move by the IvorySQL community in database architecture evolution. Built on pg_mooncake and validated by industry leaders like Databricks, it fills the twin gaps of independent open-source maintenance and Oracle migration capabilities. Through row-column store fusion, smart routing, and automatic synchronization, it achieves real-time unification of transactions and analytics in a single database — delivering practical solutions for AI Agent queries, real-time risk control, and Oracle migration. With the open-source release of version 6.0, the IvorySQL community will provide enterprises with a truly open, independently evolvable, Oracle-compatible HTAP infrastructure.
diff --git a/blog/authors.yml b/blog/authors.yml
index 5a8ad76..9c20256 100644
--- a/blog/authors.yml
+++ b/blog/authors.yml
@@ -21,6 +21,4 @@ ShunWah:
 ZhangChen:
   name: ZhangChen
 陶郑:
-  name: 陶郑
-Oreo Yang:
-  name: Oreo Yang
\ No newline at end of file
+  name: 陶郑
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/i18n/zh-CN/docusaurus-plugin-content-blog/2026-07-02-ivorysql-htap/index.md b/i18n/zh-CN/docusaurus-plugin-content-blog/2026-07-02-ivorysql-htap/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3d9d563
--- /dev/null
+++ b/i18n/zh-CN/docusaurus-plugin-content-blog/2026-07-02-ivorysql-htap/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+---
+slug: ivorysql-htap
+title: "IvorySQL HTAP 实时湖仓接入引擎"
+authors: [陶郑]
+category: IvorySQL
+image: img/blog/covers/ivorysql-htap.png
+tags: [IvorySQL, HTAP, DuckDB, PostgreSQL, Lakehouse, Mooncake]
+---
+
+> 本文章整理于 HOW 2026 中陶郑（IvorySQL 核心贡献者）演讲内容。
+> 视频回放：https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1KdLq6sEV3/
+
+## 一、数据架构的演进历程
+
+### 1.1 传统数据架构的局限
+
+业务数据从产生到被分析使用，中间需要经过多个系统的流转。当前行业主要存在两种架构模式：
+
+- **线性架构**：业务数据产生后进入事务数据库，经过 ETL 数据迁徙进入数据湖，再经处理进入数据仓库，最终由 AI 调用数据仓库接口进行分析。这一链路冗长，数据处理环节众多。
+- **变形架构**：数据同时写入事务数据库和分析型数据库（即数据库与数据仓库并存），但本质上仍是多个数据库系统，AI 查询仍需跨系统访问。
+
+这两类架构共同面临的困境是：数据处理流程复杂导致分钟级甚至小时级的延迟，且多次查询间原始数据可能已经发生变化，造成数据割裂。与此同时，多套系统的运维成本也居高不下。
+
+### 1.2 架构演进的三代路径
+
+- **第一代（2000年代——数据仓库）**：随着数据量增长，企业开始按业务需求设计数据结构并存入数据仓库。但后期业务扩展时，新增数据分析需求往往面临数据仓库改造的高昂成本。
+- **第二代（2010年代——数据湖）**：为降低成本，企业开始将全量增量数据保存至廉价的数据湖中，仅在需要时提取至数据仓库。这虽降低了存储成本，却使分析链路更加复杂，维护难度加大。
+- **第三代（2020年前后——湖仓一体）**：融合数据仓库与数据湖的优势，但本质上仍是两个系统的组合。
+
+### 1.3 HTAP 原生化：下一代架构
+
+当前最新趋势是从"湖仓一体"向"HTAP 原生化"演进——让事务数据与分析数据存储在同一数据库中，彻底消除数据迁徙与 ETL 环节。
+
+两代架构的核心差异：
+
+| 维度 | 湖仓一体 | HTAP 原生化 |
+|------|----------|-------------|
+| 存储底座 | 对象存储 | 统一高性能存储引擎 |
+| 数据新鲜度 | 分钟级/小时级 | 秒级/毫秒级 |
+| 核心能力 | 数据湖增加数仓功能 | 数据库具备数仓体量 |
+
+这意味着多个数据库整合为一个，AI 可通过单一 API 调用，无需跨库查询，运维成本显著降低，数据实时性大幅提升。
+
+## 二、AI 时代传统架构的三大痛点
+
+- **痛点一：查询模式不可预测**——Agent 生成的查询是随机的，传统架构无法同时高效应对点查和聚合分析。
+- **痛点二：数据新鲜度敏感**——ETL 延迟意味着 Agent 查询时数据可能已变化，在风控、推荐、金融等场景中不可接受。
+- **痛点三：跨系统延迟叠加**——当单次任务同时涉及点查和聚合分析时，跨系统的延迟相互叠加。
+
+## 三、HTAP 原生架构：行业动向与 IvorySQL 的定位
+
+### 3.1 行业风向标：Databricks 的两笔关键并购
+
+- **2025年5月——收购 Neon**：无服务器 PostgreSQL 服务提供商，意味着 OLAP 巨头主动进入 OLTP 领域。
+- **2025年10月——收购 Mooncake Labs**：核心项目 pg_mooncake——在 PostgreSQL 内嵌入 DuckDB 列存引擎，使同一份数据同时支持事务查询与分析查询，彻底无需 ETL。IvorySQL 的方案正是基于 pg_mooncake 构建。
+
+### 3.2 pg_mooncake 留下的两个空白
+
+- **空白一：开源生态的维护缺口**——被收购后更新频率明显放缓，开源社区需要一个独立维护的实现。
+- **空白二：Oracle 迁移场景的能力缺口**——pg_mooncake 从未考虑过 Oracle 兼容场景，而中国大量企业的核心数据仍运行在 Oracle 上。
+
+### 3.3 IvorySQL 的定位与填补
+
+IvorySQL 是一个开源的 PostgreSQL 分支，由社区独立维护，完整兼容 PostgreSQL 生态，同时支持 Oracle 语法、数据类型和函数行为。基于这一基础，IvorySQL 的 HTAP 引擎做到：
+- 填补空白一：社区独立维护的 pg_mooncake 持续演进版本，迭代方向不受商业公司绑定
+- 填补空白二：全面支持 Oracle 迁移场景的 HTAP 能力
+- 实时湖仓接入引擎：同一份数据同时支持事务与分析两条路径，实时可查
+
+## 四、技术路径与架构原理
+
+### 4.1 行存与列存：理解 HTAP 的技术基础
+
+PostgreSQL 是行存数据库，数据按整行连续存储，适合事务型操作。列存则按列独立排列，查询时可直接提取目标列，无需整行扫描，在大数据量聚合分析场景下性能优势显著。HTAP 的核心思路是：**在同一数据库中同时拥有行存与列存两种存储形态，根据查询特征自动选择最优执行路径。**
+
+### 4.2 整体架构
+
+IvorySQL HTAP 引擎基于 pg_mooncake 构建，核心机制如下：
+
+**智能路由**：通过 Hooks 方式嵌入 PostgreSQL 内核（不侵入内核代码），Planner 自动识别查询特征，判断走行存（点查/事务）还是列存（聚合/分析）效率更高，自动路由至最优执行路径。
+
+**双存储引擎**：行存采用 PG Heap 文件（OLTP），列存采用 DuckDB 引擎 + Parquet 列存格式（OLAP）。
+
+**内存共享与自动同步**：在内存中，同一份数据既可通过 PG 行存访问，也可转化为列存供 DuckDB 查询。持久化层面，数据通过 Parquet 等列存格式保存，行存与列存之间自动实时同步，应用层完全无感知。
+
+### 4.3 为什么不需要 ETL
+
+传统方案中，数据库 → ETL → 数仓，延迟达分钟级甚至小时级。HTAP 原生方案中，数据始终只有一份，行存和列存是同一份数据的两种访问路径——ETL 消失了，延迟也消失了。
+
+### 4.4 写入路径与查询路由
+
+1. 应用层 SQL：标准 SQL 语句，无需任何改造
+2. PostgreSQL 查询层：Parser → Planner → Executor，pg_mooncake 以 Hook 方式嵌入
+3. 自动路由：Planner 识别查询特征，自动决定行存或列存
+4. 双存储引擎执行：行存走 PG Heap，列存走 DuckDB + Parquet
+5. 自动同步：两种存储之间自动同步，数据始终只有一份
+
+## 五、应用场景
+
+### 场景一：Oracle 数仓迁移
+
+迁移后，Oracle 类型、语法、函数行为全面兼容，HTAP 能力随迁移一并到位，分析链路不需要重建。
+
+### 场景二：AI Agent 混合查询
+
+点查走行存，聚合走列存，一个连接搞定所有查询。数据实时一致，Agent 响应速度与决策质量同步提升。
+
+### 场景三：实时风控
+
+交易写入的同时，列存即可查询。风控规则实时触发，从分钟级降到秒级以内。
+
+## 六、开源发布计划
+
+- **发布时间**：计划伴随 IvorySQL 6.0 版本正式发布
+- **开源内容**：代码完全开源，包含三个核心模块——ivy_mooncake、ivy_duckdb、ivy_moonlink
+
+> 注：现在已经发布了预览版 [1.0 beta1](https://github.com/IvorySQL/ivy_mooncake/releases/tag/IvorySQL_1.0_beta1)
+
+## 七、总结
+
+IvorySQL HTAP 实时湖仓接入引擎，是 IvorySQL 社区在数据库架构演进方向上的重要布局。项目紧跟 Databricks 等行业巨头验证的技术方向，基于 pg_mooncake 构建，同时填补了开源独立维护与 Oracle 迁移场景两大空白。通过行存与列存的融合、智能路由与自动同步机制，实现了事务与分析在同一数据库中的实时统一，为 AI Agent 时代的数据查询、实时风控、Oracle 迁移等场景提供了切实可行的解决方案。随着 6.0 版本的开源发布，IvorySQL 社区将为企业用户提供一套真正开放、可独立演进、兼容 Oracle 生态的 HTAP 基础设施。
diff --git a/i18n/zh-CN/docusaurus-plugin-content-blog/authors.yml b/i18n/zh-CN/docusaurus-plugin-content-blog/authors.yml
index 5a8ad76..9c20256 100644
--- a/i18n/zh-CN/docusaurus-plugin-content-blog/authors.yml
+++ b/i18n/zh-CN/docusaurus-plugin-content-blog/authors.yml
@@ -21,6 +21,4 @@ ShunWah:
 ZhangChen:
   name: ZhangChen
 陶郑:
-  name: 陶郑
-Oreo Yang:
-  name: Oreo Yang
\ No newline at end of file
+  name: 陶郑
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/static/img/blog/covers/ivorysql-htap.png b/static/img/blog/covers/ivorysql-htap.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3e363e3
Binary files /dev/null and b/static/img/blog/covers/ivorysql-htap.png differ