2014-03-02 10:38 GMT+09:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> * Kouhei Kaigai (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: >>> IIUC, his approach was integration of join-pushdown within FDW APIs, >>> however, it does not mean the idea of remote-join is rejected. >> >> For my part, trying to consider doing remote joins *without* going >> through FDWs is just nonsensical. > > That is, of course, true by definition, but I think it's putting the > focus in the wrong place. It's possible that there are other cases > when a scan might a plausible path for a joinrel even if there are no > foreign tables in play. For example, you could cache the joinrel > output and then inject a cache scan as a path for the joinrel. > That might be an idea to demonstrate usage of custom-scan node, rather than the (ad-hoc) enhancement of postgres_fdw. As I have discussed in another thread, it is available to switch heap reference by cache reference on the fly, it shall be a possible use- case for custom-scan node.
So, I'm inclined to drop the portion for postgres_fdw in my submission to focus on custom-scan capability. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
