On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 15/09/10 21:21, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I wonder if we might not think of the foreign data wrapper problem as >> an instance of an even more general problem. Right now, we have >> semi-pluggable index access methods - it's probably not quite possible >> to implement one as a standalone module because of XLOG, and maybe >> other reasons, but at least there's some abstraction layer there. >> Perhaps we should be thinking about a similar facility of table-access >> methods. What if someone wants to implement column-oriented storage, >> or index-organized tables, or or tables that are really slow under >> heavy write loads but can instantaneously compute SELECT COUNT(*) FROM >> table, or mauve-colored tables with magic pixie dust? I don't want to >> raise the bar for this project to the point where we can never get it >> off the ground, but if there's a way to avoid baking in the assumption >> that only foreign tables can ever have special capabilities, that >> might be valuable. > > Well, you could implement all that as a foreign data wrappers. Tables made > out of pixie dust feels pretty foreign to me ;-).
Eh, maybe. It doesn't seem like the best name, if we're actually managing the underlying data blocks with our smgr layer, etc. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
