Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > 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? Well, as you've noticed, I made no progress on that since last PGCon. It's still something I'm thinking about, but it's a hard problem. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers