2011/2/22 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 02/21/2011 08:59 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: >>> I think we need to overhaul validators in 9.2 listening to FDW developers' >>> opinions anyway. > >> Ok, I guess. It just seems to me like it will be harder to extend the >> API later than now, so if we can reasonably foresee a likely need we >> should try to provide for it. > > Perhaps we should put a large friendly "EXPERIMENTAL, SUBJECT TO CHANGE" > notice on all the FDW API stuff? Just tell people up front that we're > not prepared to promise any API stability yet. There's stuff we *know* > is lacking (it's read-only, the optimization support sucks) in addition > to whatever we may later realize is misdesigned. > > regards, tom lane
+1 regards Pavel Stehule > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
