Re: FOREIGN TABLE doc fix

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FOREIGN TABLE doc fix
Date: 2011-06-13 18:15:13
Message-ID: 4992.1307988913@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think we're talking past each other.

> Hmm, I wonder if you're correct (as usual :-p). I thought you were
> talking about the API as defined here:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/fdw-routines.html, not
> internal planner stuff. I agree that if I use that (and I have, but
> only minimally), it should be on my own head.

Well, you'll notice that that document is mighty handwavy about exactly
what PlanForeignScan needs to do to accomplish its responsibilities...

But as far as breaking things at that level of detail is concerned, the
main thing I can foresee is that doing a parameterized inner scan on a
foreign table is both extremely desirable, and unsupportable given this
contract for PlanForeignScan. We'll need to either add more parameters
to it or invent a different entry point for considering parameterized
scans.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-13 18:22:20 Re: FOREIGN TABLE doc fix
Previous Message Dave Page 2011-06-13 18:14:02 Re: FOREIGN TABLE doc fix