From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | SAKAMOTO Masahiko <sakamoto(dot)masahiko(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL |
Date: | 2010-09-28 19:14:22 |
Message-ID: | 4CA23E8E.6070309@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/28/10 17:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> First, it seems totally wrong to assume that the same functions and
> operators will be defined on the remote side as you have locally;
> indeed, for CSV files, you won't have anything defined on the remote
> side at all. You need some kind of a discovery mechanism here to
> figure out which quals are push-downable. And it should probably be
> something generic, not a bunch of hard-wired rules that may or may not
> be correct in any particular case. What if the remote side is a
> competing database product that doesn't understand X = ANY(Y)?
> Second, even if a functions or operators does exist on both sides of
> the link, how do you know whether they have compatible semantics?
Or side-effects.
The SQL/MED specification has "routine mappings" for this purpose. We
will need that or something similar.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-28 19:41:16 | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-09-28 18:43:40 | Re: documentation udpates to pgupgrade.html |