| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Denis Lussier <denis(dot)lussier(at)openscg(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Status of FDW pushdowns |
| Date: | 2013-12-04 20:04:31 |
| Message-ID: | 24046.1386187471@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> The idea here is that such a happy situation will not obtain until
> much later, if ever, and meanwhile, we need a way to get things
> accomplished even if it's inelegant, inefficient, etc. The
> alternative is that those things simply will not get accomplished at
> all.
If that's the argument, why not just use dblink or dbilink, and be
happy? This discussion sounds a whole lot like it's trending to a
conclusion of wanting one of those in core, which is not where
I'd like to end up.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-12-04 20:11:26 | Re: Proposed feature: Selective Foreign Keys |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-04 19:54:34 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |