2012/11/28 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>:
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
>>
>> I checked the v4 patch, and I have nothing to comment anymore.
>>
>> So, could you update the remaining EXPLAIN with VERBOSE option
>> stuff?
>>
>
> Thanks for the review. Here is updated patch.
>
I checked the patch. The new VERBOSE option of EXPLAIN statement seems to me
working fine. I think it is time to hand over this patch to committer.
It is not a matter to be solved, but just my preference.
postgres=# EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) SELECT * FROM ftbl WHERE a > 0 AND b like '%a%'; QUERY
PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Foreign Scan on public.ftbl
(cost=100.00..100.01rows=1 width=36) Output: a, b Filter: (ftbl.b ~~ '%a%'::text) Remote SQL: SELECT a, b FROM
public.tblWHERE ((a OPERATOR(pg_catalog.>) 0))
(4 rows)
postgres=# EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM ftbl WHERE a > 0 AND b like '%a%'; QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------Foreign Scan on ftbl (cost=100.00..100.01 rows=1
width=36) Filter: (b ~~ '%a%'::text)
(2 rows)
Do you think the qualifier being pushed-down should be explained if VERBOSE
option was not given?
> BTW, we have one more issue around naming of new FDW, and it is discussed in
> another thread.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/9E59E6E7-39C9-4AE9-88D6-BB0098579017@gmail.com
>
I don't have any strong option about this naming discussion.
As long as it does not conflict with existing name and is not
misleading, I think
it is reasonable. So, "postgre_fdw" is OK for me. "pgsql_fdw" is also welcome.
"posugure_fdw" may make sense only in Japan. "pg_fdw" is a bit misleading.
"postgresql_fdw" might be the best, but do we have some clear advantage
on this name to take an additional effort to solve the conflict with existing
built-in postgresql_fdw_validator() function?
I think, "postgres_fdw" is enough reasonable choice.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
