Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Itagaki Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>,<hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw
Date: 2011-02-11 16:45:13
Message-ID: 4D551339020000250003A849@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Basically, we have no more tasks until the FDW core API is
> applied. COPY API and file_fdw patches are waiting for it.

This is something I've found confusing about this patch set, to the
point of not knowing what to test, exactly. The COPY API patch and
the patch-on-patch for it both applied cleanly *without any of the
other patches* and seemed to run fine, even though the post with a
patch-on-patch for the COPY API said that several other patches
needed to be applied first. In spite of having tried to follow the
posts for all the FDW threads, I'm still confused enough about the
relationship between these patches to be unsure what to test.

My top priority for testing would be to confirm that there is no
adverse impact on existing COPY performance from the refactoring.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-11 16:46:17 Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-11 16:39:19 Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3