Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables

On 03/03/2013 11:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 02/08/2013 01:03 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>>> The attached patch adds Daniel's reworks on make_modifytable
>>> invocation, and add a short comment on add_base_rels_to_query(). Rest
>>> of portion has not been changed from the previous version.
>> How's this looking for 9.3? On-list discussion seems to have been
>> positive but inconclusive and time's running out. Do you think this can
>> be turned into a production-worthy feature in the next week or two?
> I think it needs major changes. The portion against
> contrib/postgres_fdw fails to apply at all, of course, but that's my
> fault for having hacked so much on postgres_fdw before committing it.
> More generally, I don't much like the approach to ctid-substitute
> columns --- I think hacking on the rel's tupledesc like that is
> guaranteed to break things all over the place. The assorted ugly
> kluges that are already in the patch because of it are just scratching
> the surface, and there may well be consequences that are flat out
> unfixable. Probably the resjunk-columns mechanism would offer a better
> solution.
>
> I had hoped to spend several days on this and perhaps get it into
> committable shape, because I think this is a pretty significant feature
> that will take FDWs over the line from curiosity to useful tool.
> However, I've been hoping that for nigh two weeks now and not actually
> had any cycles to spend on it ...
Do you have any further brief suggestions for things that KaiGai Kohei
or others could do to make your side of this process easier and reduce
the amount of your time it'll demand?

For now it seems this stays in hopefully-can-be-made-ready limbo. I'll
keep looking through the list.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services