From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FDW for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2013-03-28 15:54:59 |
Message-ID: | 29998.1364486099@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> ... The only way to
>> make this sane at all would be to provide user control of which
>> operations go to which connections; which is inherent in dblink's API
>> but is simply not a concept in the FDW universe. And I don't want to
>> try to plaster it on, either.
> This concern would make a lot more sense to me if we were sharing a
> given FDW connection between multiple client backends/sessions; I admit
> that I've not looked through the code but the documentation seems to
> imply that we create one-or-more FDW connection per backend session and
> there's no sharing going on.
Well, ATM postgres_fdw shares connections across tables and queries;
but my point is that that's all supposed to be transparent and invisible
to the user. I don't want to have API features that make connections
explicit, because I don't think that can be shoehorned into the FDW
model without considerable strain and weird corner cases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-03-28 16:08:30 | pgsql: Add sql_drop event for event triggers |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-03-28 15:48:59 | Changing recovery.conf parameters into GUCs |