Re: validating foreign tables

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 02/21/2011 08:59 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
>> I think we need to overhaul validators in 9.2 listening to FDW developers'
>> opinions anyway.

> Ok, I guess. It just seems to me like it will be harder to extend the 
> API later than now, so if we can reasonably foresee a likely need we 
> should try to provide for it.

Perhaps we should put a large friendly "EXPERIMENTAL, SUBJECT TO CHANGE"
notice on all the FDW API stuff?  Just tell people up front that we're
not prepared to promise any API stability yet.  There's stuff we *know*
is lacking (it's read-only, the optimization support sucks) in addition
to whatever we may later realize is misdesigned.
        regards, tom lane