I've always found the best way to deal with a situation like this is to only have a brief description and link to the maintainer's page for details. It becomes an editing nightmare to keep information current and relevant. So I would suggest keeping as little on the main page as possible.
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy- > owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of damien clochard > Sent: Montag, 24. August 2015 14:22 > To: Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de> > Cc: PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Reformatting the FDW wiki page > > > > Le 24/08/2015 13:13, Michael Banck a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 18.02.2015, 12:55 +0100 schrieb damien clochard: > >> Done : > >> > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Foreign%20data%20wrappers?nocache=1 > > > > One thing that would be useful to add: a feature matrix for "write > > support", "predicate push-down", "join push-down", "schema import" etc. > > I think the difference between a basic read-only FDW and one which > > implements all of the above (or more) is rather big. > > > > I agree. Something like "production ready" or "stable" won't hurt either > because some FDW in the list are merely proof of concept, while others can > be used without hesitation > > > Mentioning the maintainer wouldn't hurt either, but that might make > > the table even wider I guess. > > > > yes that's one problem. Feature Matrix are a pain to write with a wiki syntax > (although mediawiki is not the worse). The more columns you add to the > matrix, the more difficult it is to maintain. > > Now we could find a smarter way to organize these data. Like storing them in > a robust open source RDBMS for instance... I'm pretty sure we have people > able to do that around here :)
