Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: review: FDW API

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: review: FDW API
Date: 2011-01-31 13:31:50
Message-ID: AANLkTinwTnxh5JHd69=tD3u7gLzy_C12P00BCg58PDTq@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Shigeru HANADA
<hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> * Is there any use case for changing the handler or validator function
>> of an existign FDW with ALTER? To me it just seems like an unnecessary
>> complication.
>
> AFAICS, the only case for that is upgrading FDW to new one without
> re-creating foreign tables.  I don't have strong opinion for this
> issue, and it seems reasonable to remove ALTER feature in first
> version.

-1.  I don't think that removing the ability to change this is going
to save a measurable amount of complexity, and it certainly will suck
if you need it and don't have it.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-01-31 14:19:45
Subject: Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-01-31 13:26:15
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group