On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I'm not interested in committing this patch. I don't believe it is an
>> improvement on what we've got today.
>> Tom, any chance you could offer an opinion?
>
> I have no objection to this patch as such, but I think that the docs
> around FDW direct modify need significantly more work than this.
> I've had a to-do item for awhile to work on that, but it hasn't gotten
> to the top of the list.
Well, the question is whether you or someone else is willing to commit
it. I am not. If no one else is either, then let's call it Rejected
and move on.
> A larger issue is that I think the API itself is poorly designed, as
> I stated awhile ago (<31706.1457547166@sss.pgh.pa.us>) and was told it
> was too late to object. So that's kind of discouraged me from bothering.
Apparently, you were already fairly discouraged, because you were
weighing in about once per release cycle to say "nope, still not
right". I'd really be quite happy to see you take a more active hand
in the FDW discussions; clearly, you've got a lot of understanding of
that area that is pretty much unique to you. I'd even support an
effort to rewrite the work that has already been done in a form more
to your liking, but I think you'd need to actually pay attention to
the threads on a somewhat regular basis in order that to be practical.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
