On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm working on getting a first chunk of this committed.
> OK, here's the patch.
I've now committed a version of this with a bunch of further
revisions, corrections, and cleanup. It looks to me as though this
patch was written based on the 9.0 code and not thoroughly updated for
some of the 9.1 changes, but I think I cleaned most of that up. With
a patch of this size, I am sure there are a few things I overlooked,
so please point 'em out and I'll try to fix them promptly.
Hanada-san, can you rebase the fdw_scan patch over what I committed
and post an updated version ASAP? It'd be better for Heikki or Tom to
work on that part of this than me, since they have a better
understanding of the executor than I do, but I'm sure that they will
not want to work from the previously posted patches as the changes I
made are fairly extensive.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-02 05:32:10|
|Subject: management of large patches|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-02 04:48:50|
|Subject: pgsql: Basic foreign table support.|