Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, 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.

> The right abstraction, as Josh points out, would probably be pluggable
> storage.  Are you (or is anyone) planning to pursue that further?

Well, as you've noticed, I made no progress on that since last PGCon.
It's still something I'm thinking about, but it's a hard problem.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to