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

Re: Proposal: Create index on foreign table

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Create index on foreign table
Date: 2012-03-22 09:41:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
(2012/03/22 9:24), Tom Lane wrote:
> What's at stake in the current discussion is whether it would be
> advantageous to an FDW if we were to store some information about
> remote indexes in the local catalogs.  It would still be the FDW's
> responsibility, and nobody else's, to make use of that information.
> I can believe that we might eventually decide to do that; but I do not
> think we have enough experience with different sorts of FDWs to define
> a good solution today.  And I think that most likely a good solution
> will *not* conflate such remote-index information with local indexes.
> So basically my reaction to Etsuro-san's proposal is "this is
> premature".  I think he should be hacking together some FDW-private
> facilities for individual FDWs instead (with the full understanding
> that these might be throwaway prototypes), and then looking for a
> common abstraction after he's done a few of those.

OK.  I'd like to at first focus on file FDW and Postgres FDW.  I'd like
to thank everyone who commented on this topic.  Thanks!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ants AasmaDate: 2012-03-22 12:55:32
Subject: pg_upgrade incorrectly equates pg_default and database tablespace
Previous:From: Ashutosh BapatDate: 2012-03-22 06:22:04
Subject: Re: Reconstructing Insert queries with indirection

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group