On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:12, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>>> From a functional and code structure perspective, I find this ready to commit.
>>> (I assume you'll drop the XXX: indent only comments on commit.) Kevin, did you
>>> want to do that performance testing you spoke of?
>>
>> OK, so is this Ready for Committer, or we're still working on it?
>
> Basically, we have no more tasks until the FDW core API is applied.
> COPY API and file_fdw patches are waiting for it.
>
> If we extend them a little more, I'd raise two items:
> * Should we print foreign table names in error messages?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg00427.php
> * COPY encoding patch was rejected, but using client_encoding is
> logically wrong for file_fdw. We might need subset of the patch
> for file_fdw.
It sounds to me like that second issue is a showstopper. I think we
either need to reopen discussion on that patch and come up with a
resolution that is acceptable ASAP, or we need to punt file_fdw to
9.2.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company