(2012/03/22 9:24), Tom Lane wrote:
> What's at stake in the current discussion is whether it would be
> advantageous to an FDW if we were to store some information about
> remote indexes in the local catalogs. It would still be the FDW's
> responsibility, and nobody else's, to make use of that information.
> I can believe that we might eventually decide to do that; but I do not
> think we have enough experience with different sorts of FDWs to define
> a good solution today. And I think that most likely a good solution
> will *not* conflate such remote-index information with local indexes.
> So basically my reaction to Etsuro-san's proposal is "this is
> premature". I think he should be hacking together some FDW-private
> facilities for individual FDWs instead (with the full understanding
> that these might be throwaway prototypes), and then looking for a
> common abstraction after he's done a few of those.
OK. I'd like to at first focus on file FDW and Postgres FDW. I'd like
to thank everyone who commented on this topic. Thanks!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ants Aasma||Date: 2012-03-22 12:55:32|
|Subject: pg_upgrade incorrectly equates pg_default and database tablespace|
|Previous:||From: Ashutosh Bapat||Date: 2012-03-22 06:22:04|
|Subject: Re: Reconstructing Insert queries with indirection|