Re: Status of FDW pushdowns

David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 03:04:31PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If that's the argument, why not just use dblink or dbilink, and be
>> happy?  This discussion sounds a whole lot like it's trending to a
>> conclusion of wanting one of those in core, which is not where I'd
>> like to end up.

> Telling people who've already installed and configured an FDW that for
> perfectly ordinary expected functionality they'll need to install yet
> another piece of software, configure it, keep its configuration in
> sync with the FDW configuration, etc., is just a ridiculous.

Perfectly ordinary expected functionality according to who?  Not the
SQL standard, for sure.
        regards, tom lane