| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FOREIGN TABLE doc fix |
| Date: | 2011-06-13 14:36:56 |
| Message-ID: | 16905.1307975816@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Don't hold your breath. We'll probably be making enough changes in the
>> FDW infrastructure (particularly planner support) that making an FDW
>> work on both 9.1 and 9.2 would be an exercise in frustration, if it's
>> even possible.
> Oh joy. There's a GSoC student working on 2 non-trivial FDW's right
> now, and I have a couple I've been working on. If we're going to make
> the API incompatible to that extent, we might as well not bother :-(
Oh, that's by no means a waste of time --- we need some examples to help
us figure out where the pain points are. I'm just saying that the best
ways to do things will probably change quite a bit as we introduce
solutions for the pain points. And I don't intend to be too concerned
about preserving backwards compatibility at this stage.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2011-06-13 14:49:44 | Re: wrong message on REASSIGN OWNED |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-13 14:29:28 | Re: lazy vxid locks, v1 |