On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Well, above Etsuro-san is proposing the other case, ie a Postgres index > definition for an index *not* stored in the database. But frankly > I think both ideas are pretty bad. There's no reason to expect that > Postgres' model of an index will accurately describe the facilities > available in a remote server; and if it's not accurate, is it really > of any use for planning?
Surely this will ultimately be necessary though? Some of the other use cases for fdw are things like federated databases spread over multiple postgres databases or even other SQL databases. They won't be very practical if they can only implement sequential scans. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
