Re: FOREIGN TABLE doc fix

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah - MySQL is one of the ones I've been hacking on. It's hard to be
>>> motivated if its going to need a complete rewrite within a year
>>> though. I'll still have to work on it, as I've committed to giving
>>> talks on it, but others might not bother to even start.
>>
>> It's a double-edged sword.  If nobody writes anything, because
>> everyone is afraid to possibly having to change things, nothing will
>> never need to be changed ;-)
>
> It might be that the process of writing the MySQL FDW code would show
> off things that'll need to get changed.
>
> So the breakage might turn out to be Dave's fault!  :-)
>
> [Seriously.]
>
> We really won't know what needs fixing/improving until nontrivial FDWs
> get written, and it would be somewhat ironic, but really not hugely
> surprising, if Dave wound up requesting changes to the underlying API
> to *properly* support what he writes.
>
> There's some degree of irony and amusement to be found here, but
> nothing that strikes me as disturbing.

Oh, I can imagine that happening; what I would expect though is that
we make some attempt to retain compatibility to avoid the need for
total rewrites of FDWs as Tom seems to be expecting.

BTW; it seems to me this should be documented, as it could really hack
off developers. I can't see anything in the docs to imply the API
might be radically redesigned.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company