Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A larger and more philosophical point is that such a direction of
>> development could hardly be called a "foreign" data wrapper. People
>> would expect Postgres to take full responsibility for such files,
>> including data integrity considerations such as fsync-at-checkpoints
>> and WAL support. Even if we wanted the FDW abstractions to allow
>> for that, we're very far away from it. And frankly I'd maintain
>> that FDW is the wrong abstraction.
> The right abstraction, as Josh points out, would probably be pluggable
> storage. Are you (or is anyone) planning to pursue that further?
Well, as you've noticed, I made no progress on that since last PGCon.
It's still something I'm thinking about, but it's a hard problem.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
