Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 05/05/2014 10:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> A larger and more philosophical point is that such a direction of
>> development could hardly be called a "foreign" data wrapper. People
>> would expect Postgres to take full responsibility for such files,
>> including data integrity considerations such as fsync-at-checkpoints
>> and WAL support. Even if we wanted the FDW abstractions to allow
>> for that, we're very far away from it. And frankly I'd maintain
>> that FDW is the wrong abstraction.
> Certainly pluggable storage would be a better abstraction; but we don't
> have that yet. In the meantime, we have one FDW which creates files
> *right now*, and we might have more in the future, so I'm trying to
> establish some guidelines as to how such FDWs should behave.
The guideline is simple: don't do that. We should absolutely not
encourage this until/unless we have infrastructure to support it.
Just because one FDW author thought this would be a cool thing to do
does not make it a cool thing to do, and definitely not a cool thing
to encourage others to emulate.
> Regardless
> of whether or not you think FDWs should be managing files, it's better
> for users if all FDWs which manage files manage them in the same way.
Sure. They should all keep them outside $PGDATA, making it not-our-
problem. When and if we're prepared to consider it our problem, we
will be sure to advise people.
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
