Re: Status of FDW pushdowns

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Shigeru Hanada
<shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2013/11/22 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> I know join pushdowns seem insignificant, but it helps to restrict what
>>>> data must be passed back because you would only pass back joined rows.
>>
>>> By 'insignificant' you mean 'necessary to do any non-trivial real
>>> work'. Personally, I'd prefer it if FDW was extended to allow
>>> arbitrary parameterized queries like every other database connectivity
>>> API ever made ever.
>>
>> [ shrug... ] So use dblink. For better or worse, the FDW stuff is
>> following the SQL standard's SQL/MED design, which does not do it
>> like that.
>
> Pass-through mode mentioned in SQL/MED standard might be what he wants.

happen to have a link handy?

merlin