| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Arguments to foreign tables? |
| Date: | 2012-11-06 16:13:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1352218392.6292.45.camel@jdavis-laptop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 09:39 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> So, my understanding of your proposal is that a good way to implement
> streaming SRF would be on top of the internals of Foreign Data Wrappers?
Yes, I was talking about combining the mechanisms and combining the
capabilities of each mechanism. That would hopefully be a net decrease
in code, and offer the ability of FDWs to be strictly more powerful than
SRFs (though perhaps more challenging to develop).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-11-06 16:18:19 | Re: Arguments to foreign tables? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-11-06 16:10:53 | Re: Arguments to foreign tables? |