On 2015/09/01 9:54, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:10:11PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
As far as (3) is concerned, why
wouldn't we use the foreign data wrapper interface, and specifically
postgres_fdw? That interface was designed for the explicit purpose of
allowing access to remote data sources, and a lot of work has been put
into it, so it would be highly surprising if we decided to throw that
away and develop something completely new from the ground up.
Well, query hooks are also a capability which we already have, and is
mature. Citus has already posted about why they chose to use them instead.
As long as you recognize that the FDW API (not just the existing fdws)
will need to expand to make this work, it's a viable path.
Uh, we already have a list of things we need to add to FDWs to make them
work, and Citus Data has provided a document of more things that are
needed, https://goo.gl/vJWF85.
My top priority is postgres_fdw join pushdown, but I also plan to work
on update pushdown [1] for 9.6, which couldn't make it into 9.5. I
think that would resolve the following issue mentioned in the document:
UPDATE and DELETE operations are performed by first fetching
records from the table scanning functions, and then going over
the fetched records. If the user wanted to update a single row,
this involved first pulling rows and then updating related
records.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/162/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
