On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Incidentally, are you planning to revive the PostgreSQL FDW for 9.2? >>>> That would be a killer feature. > >>> Even more killer would be that it could be built/packaged as an >>> extension, and use for 9.1 too ;-) > >> +1! > > Don't hold your breath. We'll probably be making enough changes in the > FDW infrastructure (particularly planner support) that making an FDW > work on both 9.1 and 9.2 would be an exercise in frustration, if it's > even possible.
Oh joy. There's a GSoC student working on 2 non-trivial FDW's right now, and I have a couple I've been working on. If we're going to make the API incompatible to that extent, we might as well not bother :-( -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: 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
