Re: TABLESPACE and directory for Foreign tables?

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> A larger and more philosophical point is that such a direction of
> development could hardly be called a "foreign" data wrapper.  People
> would expect Postgres to take full responsibility for such files,
> including data integrity considerations such as fsync-at-checkpoints
> and WAL support.  Even if we wanted the FDW abstractions to allow
> for that, we're very far away from it.  And frankly I'd maintain
> that FDW is the wrong abstraction.

The right abstraction, as Josh points out, would probably be pluggable
storage.  Are you (or is anyone) planning to pursue that further?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company