| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Create index on foreign table |
| Date: | 2012-03-21 23:49:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HNvFU2J=gK0DABLRd4OhjM6_6PJSYoSGx__VKH69C_RAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, above Etsuro-san is proposing the other case, ie a Postgres index
> definition for an index *not* stored in the database. But frankly
> I think both ideas are pretty bad. There's no reason to expect that
> Postgres' model of an index will accurately describe the facilities
> available in a remote server; and if it's not accurate, is it really
> of any use for planning?
Surely this will ultimately be necessary though? Some of the other use
cases for fdw are things like federated databases spread over multiple
postgres databases or even other SQL databases. They won't be very
practical if they can only implement sequential scans.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-22 00:09:48 | Re: HOT updates & REDIRECT line pointers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-21 23:19:37 | HOT updates & REDIRECT line pointers |