On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:12, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >>> From a functional and code structure perspective, I find this ready to >>> commit. >>> (I assume you'll drop the XXX: indent only comments on commit.) Kevin, did >>> you >>> want to do that performance testing you spoke of? >> >> OK, so is this Ready for Committer, or we're still working on it? > > Basically, we have no more tasks until the FDW core API is applied. > COPY API and file_fdw patches are waiting for it. > > If we extend them a little more, I'd raise two items: > * Should we print foreign table names in error messages? > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg00427.php > * COPY encoding patch was rejected, but using client_encoding is > logically wrong for file_fdw. We might need subset of the patch > for file_fdw.
It sounds to me like that second issue is a showstopper. I think we either need to reopen discussion on that patch and come up with a resolution that is acceptable ASAP, or we need to punt file_fdw to 9.2. -- 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
