Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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