Maybe you could set some options on the foreign table before selecting from it ? Another way you could achieve the same result would be to give some column a special meaning (like it is done in the twitter_fdw for example).
If you don't mind, do you have a specific use-case for this ? -- Ronan Dunklau 2012/11/6 Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> > On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 15:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > > > Is there any fundamental or philosophical reason why a foreign table > > > can't accept arguments? > > > > That isn't a table; it's some sort of function. Now that we have > > LATERAL, there is no good reason to contort SQL's syntax and semantics > > in the direction you suggest. > > Maybe I should rephrase this as a problem with SRFs: you don't get to > define the init/exec/end executor functions, and you don't get access to > the optimizer information. > > It seems like foreign tables are a better mechanism (except for the > simple cases where you don't care about the details), and the only thing > an SRF can do that a foreign table can't is accept arguments. So, I > thought maybe it would make more sense to combine the mechanisms > somehow. > > Take something as simple as generate_series: right now, it materializes > the entire thing if it's in the FROM clause, but it wouldn't need to if > it could use the foreign table mechanism. > > Regards, > Jeff Davis > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
