From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Susanne Ebrecht <susanne(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FDW table hints |
Date: | 2011-05-05 17:14:10 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTiky-0ewK6KsoqxvQ1yn_QkKXFq5fg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 16:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Susanne Ebrecht
>> <susanne(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> When we make such a hint for foreign tables then we should make a similar
>>> hint for views.
>
>> A view really isn't a table, unlike a foreign table, so I don't think
>> that argument holds.
>
> Well, from the implementation standpoint a foreign table is a lot more
> like a view than it is like a table. I think the real point is that a
> hint for this on views would be a waste of translator manpower, because
> we've not heard of anyone making that mistake.
The *implementation* is in this case, IMHO; irrelevant. The relevant
part is what it looks like to the *user*, and to the user a foreign
table looks a lot more like a table than a view does.
Since I brought it up - a patch along this line?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
foreign_table_index.patch | text/x-patch | 829 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-05-05 17:15:15 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Joshua Berkus | 2011-05-05 17:09:46 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |