Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Date
Msg-id 4F437F25.6050805@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
List pgsql-hackers
(2012/02/15 20:50), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2012/02/14 23:50), Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (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.

>> 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.

Please find attached an updated version of the patch.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE?