On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > * Is there any point in allowing a FDW without a handler? It's totally > useless, isn't it? We had the CREATE FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER syntax in previous > versions, and it allowed it, but it has always been totally useless so I > don't think we need to worry much about backwards-compatibility here.
Aren't things like dblink using this in its existing form? > * Is there any use case for changing the handler or validator function of an > existign FDW with ALTER? To me it just seems like an unnecessary > complication. +1. > * IMHO the "FDW-info" should always be displayed, without VERBOSE. In my > experience with another DBMS that had this feature, the SQL being sent to > the remote server was almost always the key piece of information that I was > looking for in the query plans. +1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: 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
