| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(dot)postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planner debug views |
| Date: | 2015-07-30 21:42:38 |
| Message-ID: | 55BA9A4E.8050206@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/29/15 2:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
>> Can we simplify above with foreign table methods? There are two major
>> concerns about this method per previous discussions: security and
>> usability. I think the main cause is the sharing foreign table design.
>
> I think foreign data wrappers are great. I do not think that we should
> try to shape every problem to look like foreign data so that we can
> solve it with a foreign data wrapper. I am a bit nervous that this
> keeps being brought up.
Agreed.
I think a better option would be shoving it into a backend tuplestore
and just leaving it there (maybe with a command to clear it for the
paranoid). That gives a relation you can query against, insert into
another table, etc.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-07-30 21:55:57 | Re: Updatable view? |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2015-07-30 21:41:44 | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump |