From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Martin Pihlak" <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: SQL/MED compatible connection manager |
Date: | 2008-12-15 20:41:10 |
Message-ID: | 200812152241.11236.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 15 December 2008 22:30:19 Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > Now I have a question about the FDW C interface. The way I understand
> > it, an SQL/MED-enabled server and a FDW each have a specific API by which
> > they communicate. Supposedly, each database vendor should be able to
> > ship a binary library for its FDW and each SQL/MED-enabled server should
> > be able to load and use it. (If you don't believe in binary
> > compatibility, then I think there should at least be source-level
> > interface compatibility.)
>
> Yes, all FDWs should be similar to ODBC drivers in that they are
> self-contained and interface with the database through a defined API.
> What happens inside them should be irrelevant to PG.
What we are currently trying to figure out is the best method to introduce
extensions to the API.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-12-15 20:46:47 | Re: planner issue with constraint exclusion |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-15 20:37:50 | Re: Function with defval returns error |