> Sorry I typed the wrong key.
>
> So... Are you planning to give up on the ctidscan module and submit only
> the module written by Hanada-san on top of postgres_fdw? As I imagine that
> the goal is just to have a test module to run the APIs why would the module
> submitted by Hanada-san be that necessary?
>
No. The ctidscan module is a reference implementation towards the existing
custom-scan interface that just supports relation scan with own way, but no
support for relations join at this moment.
The upcoming enhancement to postgres_fdw will support remote join, that looks
like a scan on pseudo materialized relation on local side. It is the proof of
the concept to the new interface I like to discuss in this thread.
Thanks,
--
NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 6:17 PM
> To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平)
> Cc: Robert Haas; Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org; Shigeru Hanada
> Subject: Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [HACKERS] [v9.5] Custom Plan
> API)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Kouhei Kaigai
> <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Where are we on this? AFAIK, we have now a feature with
> no documentation
> > and no example in-core to test those custom routine APIs,
> hence moved to
> > next CF.
> >
> Now Hanada-san is working on the example module that use
> this new
> infrastructure on top of postgres_fdw. Probably, he will
> submit the
> patch within a couple of days, for the upcoming commit fest.
>
>
>
> I am a bit surprised by that. Are you planning to give up on the
> ctidscan module module and
>
>
>
> Sorry I typed the wrong key.
>
> So... Are you planning to give up on the ctidscan module and submit only
> the module written by Hanada-san on top of postgres_fdw? As I imagine that
> the goal is just to have a test module to run the APIs why would the module
> submitted by Hanada-san be that necessary?
>
> --
>
> Michael
