Sent from my iPad
> On 28-Nov-2013, at 16:13, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> I'm not real sure what this'd buy us that wouldn't be done as well or
>> better by creating a view on the remote side. (IOW, there's nothing
>> that says that the remote object backing a foreign table can't be a
>> view.)
>
> Agreed, for those remote sides that know what a view is.
I agree.
I agree with the overall model here, but I am not sure how it would work out for non SQL supporting remote sides.
Regards,
Atri
