From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
Date: | 2011-10-25 13:22:37 |
Message-ID: | CACMqXCLA4WYTRuRHV2UA02kAzoXubtCZkmjOijMM5xKQpmN+Lw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> 2011/10/25 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> I'd like to propose pgsql_fdw, FDW for external PostgreSQL server, as a
>>> contrib module. I think that this module would be the basis of further
>>> SQL/MED development for core, e.g. join-push-down and ANALYZE support.
>
>> I have not looked at the code itself, but I wonder if we shouldn't
>> consider making this a part of core-proper, not just a contrib module.
>> The fact that it isn't *already* available in core surprises a lot of
>> people...
>
> We've just spent a whole lot of blood and sweat on making the extension
> mechanism work nicely. I don't understand this urge to not use it.
>
> ATM I'm not sure it's even a good idea to push pgsql_fdw into contrib.
> Once we do that its release schedule will get locked to core's ---
> wouldn't it be better to keep flexibility for now, while it's in such
> active development?
Simple question - do FDW internals need work?
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2011-10-25 13:54:08 | Re: Unreproducible bug in snapshot import code |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-10-25 13:05:11 | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |