2010/12/14 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Shigeru HANADA
> <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp> wrote:
>> I've revised fdw_core patch along your proposal and subsequent
>> discussion, and tried to fix FDW patches pgsql_fdw and file_fdw
>> according to fdw_core. Attached is a WIP which includes changes
>> below.
>
> This actually doesn't apply cleanly. There's a hunk in pg_class.h
> that is failing.
>
> I think attgenoptions is a poor choice of name for the concept it
> represents. Surely it should be attfdwoptions. But I am wondering
> whether we could actually go a step further and break this
> functionality off into a separate patch. Do file_fdw and/or
> postgresql_fdw require column-level FDW options? If not, splitting
> this part out looks like it would be a fairly significant
> simplification for v1
>
> Along similar lines, I think we could simplify the first version of
> this considerably by removing all the support for constraints on
> foreign tables. It might be useful to have that some day, but in the
> interest of whittling this down to a manageable size, it seems like we
> could easily do without that for starters.
>
> On the other hand, I don't really see any advantage to allowing rules
> on foreign tables - ever. Unless there's some reason we really need
> that, my gut feeling would be to rip it out and forget about it.
views, updateable views?
Pavel
>
> The docs should avoid cut-and-pasting large quantities of the existing
> docs. Instead, they should refer to the existing material.
>
> Copyright notice for new files should go through 2010, not 2009.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>