Re: disposition of remaining patches

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 3, 4, 5. SQL/MED. Tom has picked up the main FDW API patch, which I
> expect means it'll go in. I am not so sure about the FDW patches,
> though: in particular, based on Heikki's comments, the postgresql_fdw
> patch seems to be badly in need of some more work. The file_fdw patch
> may be in better shape (I'm not 100% sure), but it needs the encoding
> fix patch Itagaki Takahiro recently proposed. For this to be
> worthwhile, we presumably need to get at least one FDW committed along
> with the API patch.

FWIW, my thought is to try to get the API patch committed and then do
the file_fdw patch. Maybe I'm hopelessly ASCII-centric, but I do not
see encoding considerations as a blocking factor for this. If we define
that files are read in the database encoding, it's still a pretty damn
useful feature. We can look at whether that can be improved after we
have some kind of feature at all.

postgresql_fdw may have to live as an external project for the 9.1
cycle, unless it's in much better shape than you suggest above.
I won't feel too bad about that as long as the core support exists.
More than likely, people would want to improve it on a faster release
cycle than the core anyway.

regards, tom lane