Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 05.10.2010 17:56, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I can't imagine how an FDW could possibly be expected to perform well
>> without some persistent local data storage.
> It doesn't seem completely out of the question to me.
One other point that could be made here is that it's not going to
surprise anybody that access to a remote table is really slow compared
to access to a local table. Why would it surprise anybody if planning
for a remote table is really slow compared to planning for a local
table? Where is the evidence that anyone would even *notice* the extra
planning time, compared to the execution time of the finished query?
This is still all about premature optimization.
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
