Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I find this a somewhat depressing response. Didn't we discuss this
> exact design at the developer meeting in Ottawa? I thought it sounded
> reasonable to you then, or at least I don't remember you panning it.
What I recall saying is that I didn't see how the planner side of it would
work ... and I still don't see that. I'd be okay with committing
executor-side fixes only if we had a vision of where we'd go on the
planner side; but this patch doesn't offer any path forward there.
This is not unlike the FDW stuff, where getting a reasonable set of
planner APIs in place was by far the hardest part (and isn't really done
even yet, since you still can't do remote joins or remote aggregation in
any reasonable fashion). But you can do simple stuff reasonably simply,
without reimplementing all of the planner along the way --- and I think
we should look for some equivalent level of usefulness from this before
we commit it.
regards, tom lane
