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

Re: Arguments to foreign tables?

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Arguments to foreign tables?
Date: 2012-11-06 06:09:31
Message-ID: 1352182171.6292.29.camel@jdavis-laptop (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 15:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > Is there any fundamental or philosophical reason why a foreign table
> > can't accept arguments?
> That isn't a table; it's some sort of function.  Now that we have
> LATERAL, there is no good reason to contort SQL's syntax and semantics
> in the direction you suggest.

Maybe I should rephrase this as a problem with SRFs: you don't get to
define the init/exec/end executor functions, and you don't get access to
the optimizer information.

It seems like foreign tables are a better mechanism (except for the
simple cases where you don't care about the details), and the only thing
an SRF can do that a foreign table can't is accept arguments. So, I
thought maybe it would make more sense to combine the mechanisms

Take something as simple as generate_series: right now, it materializes
the entire thing if it's in the FROM clause, but it wouldn't need to if
it could use the foreign table mechanism.

	Jeff Davis

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2012-11-06 06:10:50
Subject: Re: Statistics and selectivity estimation for ranges
Previous:From: Karl O. PincDate: 2012-11-06 03:41:13
Subject: Re: Doc patch, distinguish sections with an empty row in error code table

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group