| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP) |
| Date: | 2009-09-20 16:48:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1253465318.20098.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:47 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > This patch is listed in the commitfest, but I think the consensus was
> > that it needed some rework.
>
> No doubt, but SQL/MED will require a lot of works. Can we split the work
> into small parts? I intended FDW-based dblink to be one of the split jobs.
Sure, but I think what you are doing here isn't on anyone's agenda. I
would imagine that the next step would be to implement foreign tables
using something like dblink's interface as underlying interface. What
you are proposing doesn't really move us closer to that, or I'm
misunderstanding what you are trying to achieve. So what is the purpose
of this patch anyway?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-09-20 16:55:56 | Re: walreceiver settings Re: Streaming Replication patch for CommitFest 2009-09 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-20 16:45:04 | Re: operator exclusion constraints [was: generalized index constraints] |