Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Eric Ridge <e_ridge(at)tcdi(dot)com>
Subject: Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions
Date: 2013-12-17 19:26:36
Message-ID: 14708.1387308396@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> What surprises me is we don't have an API that allows an FDW to decide
> what it can accept or not. It seems strange to have a unilateral
> decision by our planner about what another planner is capable of.

Uh, what?

There's certainly missing features in our FDW APIs --- no ability to push
over joins or aggregates for instance --- but none of that has anything to
do with assumptions about what the other end is capable of. We're just
not done inventing those APIs.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2013-12-17 19:47:58 Re: SSL: better default ciphersuite
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-12-17 19:20:18 Re: planner missing a trick for foreign tables w/OR conditions