Re: Surfacing qualifiers

Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
>> You mentioned in an earlier mail that the information exposed was
>> inadequate.  Could you sketch out what information would really be
>> needed and where to find it?
> 
> The main problem with what you suggest is that it'll fail utterly
> on join queries.
> 
> AFAICS any real improvement in the situation will require exposing
> remote tables as a concept understood by the planner, complete
> with ways to obtain index and statistical information at plan time.
> After suitable decisions about join strategy and so forth, we'd
> wind up with a plan containing a "RemoteTableScan" node which

I'd like to point out that Remote* might be a bit to narrow because
its also a general potential for SRF functions (e.g. any virtual table
construction). Would certainly be nice if we had a as general approach
as possible.

Cheers
Tino