On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> * Is there any point in allowing a FDW without a handler? It's totally
> useless, isn't it? We had the CREATE FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER syntax in previous
> versions, and it allowed it, but it has always been totally useless so I
> don't think we need to worry much about backwards-compatibility here.
Aren't things like dblink using this in its existing form?
> * Is there any use case for changing the handler or validator function of an
> existign FDW with ALTER? To me it just seems like an unnecessary
> complication.
+1.
> * IMHO the "FDW-info" should always be displayed, without VERBOSE. In my
> experience with another DBMS that had this feature, the SQL being sent to
> the remote server was almost always the key piece of information that I was
> looking for in the query plans.
+1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
