| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: FDW API |
| Date: | 2011-01-24 13:29:53 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik3E6p81e9FkYvXvP8=FBOX8CURZuc4w+mVPRbz@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> * Is there any point in allowing a FDW without a handler? It's totally
> useless, isn't it? We had the CREATE FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER syntax in previous
> versions, and it allowed it, but it has always been totally useless so I
> don't think we need to worry much about backwards-compatibility here.
Aren't things like dblink using this in its existing form?
> * Is there any use case for changing the handler or validator function of an
> existign FDW with ALTER? To me it just seems like an unnecessary
> complication.
+1.
> * IMHO the "FDW-info" should always be displayed, without VERBOSE. In my
> experience with another DBMS that had this feature, the SQL being sent to
> the remote server was almost always the key piece of information that I was
> looking for in the query plans.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xiaobo Gu | 2011-01-24 14:02:09 | Re: Is there a way to build PostgreSQL client libraries with MinGW |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-01-24 13:08:11 | Re: review: FDW API |