Re: Status of FDW pushdowns - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Status of FDW pushdowns
Date
Msg-id 23409.1385048774@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Status of FDW pushdowns  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Status of FDW pushdowns  (Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>)
Re: Status of FDW pushdowns  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I know join pushdowns seem insignificant, but it helps to restrict what
>> data must be passed back because you would only pass back joined rows.

> By 'insignificant' you mean 'necessary to do any non-trivial real
> work'.   Personally, I'd prefer it if FDW was extended to allow
> arbitrary parameterized queries like every other database connectivity
> API ever made ever.

[ shrug... ]  So use dblink.  For better or worse, the FDW stuff is
following the SQL standard's SQL/MED design, which does not do it
like that.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Status of FDW pushdowns
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol