Re: Status of FDW pushdowns - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Shigeru Hanada
Subject Re: Status of FDW pushdowns
Date
Msg-id CAEZqfEc1oMMtc3M1H_q1Ba9dsUuf7=s3Te_L_EwpBa_jFEv7CQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Status of FDW pushdowns  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Status of FDW pushdowns  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
2013/11/22 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> I know join pushdowns seem insignificant, but it helps to restrict what
>>> data must be passed back because you would only pass back joined rows.
>
>> By 'insignificant' you mean 'necessary to do any non-trivial real
>> work'.   Personally, I'd prefer it if FDW was extended to allow
>> arbitrary parameterized queries like every other database connectivity
>> API ever made ever.
>
> [ shrug... ]  So use dblink.  For better or worse, the FDW stuff is
> following the SQL standard's SQL/MED design, which does not do it
> like that.

Pass-through mode mentioned in SQL/MED standard might be what he wants.

-- 
Shigeru HANADA



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shigeru Hanada
Date:
Subject: Re: Status of FDW pushdowns
Next
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax