* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > In accordance with the above, what I'd like to see with this patch is > > removal of the postgres_fdw changes and any changes which were for that > > support. In addition, I'd like to understand why 'ctidscan' makes any > > sense to have as an example of what to use this for- if that's valuable, > > why wouldn't we simply implement that in core? I do want an example in > > contrib of how to properly use this capability, but I don't think that's > > it. > > I suggested that example to KaiGai at last year's PGCon. It may > indeed be something we want to have in core, but right now we don't.
Alright- so do you feel that the simple ctidscan use-case is a sufficient justification and example of how this can be generally useful that we should be adding these hooks to core..? I'm willing to work through the patch and clean it up this weekend if we agree that it's useful and unlikely to immediately be broken by expected changes.. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature