Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> On 2016/07/15 11:48, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we add a mechanism to let us know that the FDW doesn't care, we could
>> relax the requirement for such cases. I don't have a strong opinion on
>> whether that's worthwhile. It'd depend in part on how many FDWs there
>> are that don't care, versus those that do; and I have no idea about that.
> So, I'd vote for leaving that for future work if necessary.
Makes sense to me.
> Here is a patch for that redesign proposed by you; reverts commits
> fbe5a3fb73102c2cfec11aaaa4a67943f4474383 and
> 5d4171d1c70edfe3e9be1de9e66603af28e3afe1, adds changes for that redesign
> to the core, and adjusts the postgres_fdw code to that changes. Also, I
> rearranged the postgres_fdw regression tests to match that changes.
OK, I'll review this later today.
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
