* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I don't want to have API features that make connections > explicit, because I don't think that can be shoehorned into the FDW > model without considerable strain and weird corner cases.
It seems we're talking past each other here. I'm not particularly interested in exposing what connections have been made to other servers via some API (though I could see some debugging use there). What I was hoping for is a way for a given user to say "I want this specific change, to this table, to be persisted immediately". I'd love to have that ability *without* FDWs too. It just happens that FDWs provide a simple way to get there from here and without a lot of muddying of the waters, imv. FDWs are no stranger to remote connections which don't have transactions either, file_fdw will happily return whatever the current contents of the file are with no concern for PG transactions. I would expect a writable file_fdw to act the same and immediately write out any data written to it. Hope that clarifies things a bit. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature