David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes:
> The idea here is that such a happy situation will not obtain until
> much later, if ever, and meanwhile, we need a way to get things
> accomplished even if it's inelegant, inefficient, etc. The
> alternative is that those things simply will not get accomplished at
> all.
If that's the argument, why not just use dblink or dbilink, and be
happy? This discussion sounds a whole lot like it's trending to a
conclusion of wanting one of those in core, which is not where
I'd like to end up.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
