Re: SQL/MED compatible connection manager

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Martin Pihlak" <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: SQL/MED compatible connection manager
Date: 2008-12-15 20:41:10
Message-ID: 200812152241.11236.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Monday 15 December 2008 22:30:19 Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > Now I have a question about the FDW C interface. The way I understand
> > it, an SQL/MED-enabled server and a FDW each have a specific API by which
> > they communicate. Supposedly, each database vendor should be able to
> > ship a binary library for its FDW and each SQL/MED-enabled server should
> > be able to load and use it. (If you don't believe in binary
> > compatibility, then I think there should at least be source-level
> > interface compatibility.)
>
> Yes, all FDWs should be similar to ODBC drivers in that they are
> self-contained and interface with the database through a defined API.
> What happens inside them should be irrelevant to PG.

What we are currently trying to figure out is the best method to introduce
extensions to the API.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2008-12-15 20:46:47 Re: planner issue with constraint exclusion
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-12-15 20:37:50 Re: Function with defval returns error