Re: FDW for PostgreSQL
От | Kohei KaiGai |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FDW for PostgreSQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADyhKSUrfoS0eyOt9rmUkjrGBUF5MztLLp4W0msETR14u44OEQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FDW for PostgreSQL (Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: FDW for PostgreSQL
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2012/11/28 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>: > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: >> >> I checked the v4 patch, and I have nothing to comment anymore. >> >> So, could you update the remaining EXPLAIN with VERBOSE option >> stuff? >> > > Thanks for the review. Here is updated patch. > I checked the patch. The new VERBOSE option of EXPLAIN statement seems to me working fine. I think it is time to hand over this patch to committer. It is not a matter to be solved, but just my preference. postgres=# EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) SELECT * FROM ftbl WHERE a > 0 AND b like '%a%'; QUERY PLAN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Foreign Scan on public.ftbl (cost=100.00..100.01rows=1 width=36) Output: a, b Filter: (ftbl.b ~~ '%a%'::text) Remote SQL: SELECT a, b FROM public.tblWHERE ((a OPERATOR(pg_catalog.>) 0)) (4 rows) postgres=# EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM ftbl WHERE a > 0 AND b like '%a%'; QUERY PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------Foreign Scan on ftbl (cost=100.00..100.01 rows=1 width=36) Filter: (b ~~ '%a%'::text) (2 rows) Do you think the qualifier being pushed-down should be explained if VERBOSE option was not given? > BTW, we have one more issue around naming of new FDW, and it is discussed in > another thread. > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9E59E6E7-39C9-4AE9-88D6-BB0098579017@gmail.com > I don't have any strong option about this naming discussion. As long as it does not conflict with existing name and is not misleading, I think it is reasonable. So, "postgre_fdw" is OK for me. "pgsql_fdw" is also welcome. "posugure_fdw" may make sense only in Japan. "pg_fdw" is a bit misleading. "postgresql_fdw" might be the best, but do we have some clear advantage on this name to take an additional effort to solve the conflict with existing built-in postgresql_fdw_validator() function? I think, "postgres_fdw" is enough reasonable choice. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: