Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm somewhat afraid that a remote-PG adapter will turn into a can of
> worms. If we give up on remote statistics, does that mean we're also
> giving up on index use on the remote side? I fear that we'll end up
> crafting partial solutions that will only end up getting thrown away,
> but after a lot of work has been invested in them.

Per Fred Brooks: "Plan to throw one away. You will anyhow."

> I wonder if we
> should focus on first efforts on really simple cases like CSV files
> (as you mentioned) and perhaps something like memcached, which has
> different properties than a CSV file, but extremely simple ones. I
> think it's inevitable that the API is going to get more complicated
> from release to release and probably not in backward-compatible ways;
> I think it's too early to be worried about that.

+1 ... we can *not* assume that we know enough to get the API right
the first time. It'll have to be stated up front that it's subject to
change and you probably shouldn't be trying to develop FDWs separately
from the main project for awhile yet.

I think that looking only at CSV might be too simple, though. It'd be
good to be at least trying to build a remote-PG adapter, even with the
knowledge that it's all throwaway code.

regards, tom lane