On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Shigeru HANADA <han...@metrosystems.co.jp> wrote: > I've revised fdw_core patch along your proposal and subsequent > discussion, and tried to fix FDW patches pgsql_fdw and file_fdw > according to fdw_core. Attached is a WIP which includes changes > below.
This actually doesn't apply cleanly. There's a hunk in pg_class.h that is failing. I think attgenoptions is a poor choice of name for the concept it represents. Surely it should be attfdwoptions. But I am wondering whether we could actually go a step further and break this functionality off into a separate patch. Do file_fdw and/or postgresql_fdw require column-level FDW options? If not, splitting this part out looks like it would be a fairly significant simplification for v1 Along similar lines, I think we could simplify the first version of this considerably by removing all the support for constraints on foreign tables. It might be useful to have that some day, but in the interest of whittling this down to a manageable size, it seems like we could easily do without that for starters. On the other hand, I don't really see any advantage to allowing rules on foreign tables - ever. Unless there's some reason we really need that, my gut feeling would be to rip it out and forget about it. The docs should avoid cut-and-pasting large quantities of the existing docs. Instead, they should refer to the existing material. Copyright notice for new files should go through 2010, not 2009. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
