| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Denis Lussier <denis(dot)lussier(at)openscg(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Status of FDW pushdowns |
| Date: | 2013-11-29 14:57:37 |
| Message-ID: | FFEEBEB0-CB0D-46BD-837E-3EB7D1FD00C3@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sent from my iPad
> On 28-Nov-2013, at 16:13, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I'm not real sure what this'd buy us that wouldn't be done as well or
>> better by creating a view on the remote side. (IOW, there's nothing
>> that says that the remote object backing a foreign table can't be a
>> view.)
>
> Agreed, for those remote sides that know what a view is.
I agree.
I agree with the overall model here, but I am not sure how it would work out for non SQL supporting remote sides.
Regards,
Atri
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2013-11-29 15:43:12 | Re: [PATCH 1/2] SSL: GUC option to prefer server cipher order |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-11-29 14:25:02 | Re: [PATCH 1/2] SSL: GUC option to prefer server cipher order |