* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> I don't want to have API features that make connections
> explicit, because I don't think that can be shoehorned into the FDW
> model without considerable strain and weird corner cases.
It seems we're talking past each other here. I'm not particularly
interested in exposing what connections have been made to other servers
via some API (though I could see some debugging use there). What I was
hoping for is a way for a given user to say "I want this specific
change, to this table, to be persisted immediately". I'd love to have
that ability *without* FDWs too. It just happens that FDWs provide a
simple way to get there from here and without a lot of muddying of the
FDWs are no stranger to remote connections which don't have transactions
either, file_fdw will happily return whatever the current contents of
the file are with no concern for PG transactions. I would expect a
writable file_fdw to act the same and immediately write out any data
written to it.
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kohei KaiGai||Date: 2013-03-28 16:33:24|
|Subject: Re: [sepgsql 1/3] add name qualified creation label|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2013-03-28 16:13:40|
|Subject: Re: sql_drop Event Triggerg|