Re: FDW table hints

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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