On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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? -- 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
