Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F3B9BF8.6020802@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
(2012/02/14 23:50), Tom Lane wrote: > Shigeru Hanada<shigeru.hanada@gmail.com> writes: >> (2012/02/14 17:40), Etsuro Fujita wrote: >>> As discussed at >>> that thread, it would have to change the PlanForeignScan API to let the >>> FDW generate multiple paths and dump them all to add_path instead of >>> returning a FdwPlan struct. > >> Multiple valuable Paths for a scan of a foreign table by FDW, but >> changing PlanForeignScan to return list of FdwPlan in 9.2 seems too >> hasty. > > I would really like to see that happen in 9.2, because the longer we let > that mistake live, the harder it will be to change. More and more FDWs > are getting written. I don't think it's that hard to do: we just have > to agree that PlanForeignScan should return void and call add_path for > itself, possibly more than once. Agreed. I fixed the PlanForeignScan API. Please find attached a patch. > If we do that, I'm inclined to think > we cou;d get rid of the separate Node type FdwPlan, and just incorporate > "List *fdw_private" into ForeignPath and ForeignScan. +1 While the patch retains the struct FdwPlan, I would like to get rid of it at next version of the patch. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: