Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: > On 2016/07/15 11:48, Tom Lane wrote: >> If we add a mechanism to let us know that the FDW doesn't care, we could >> relax the requirement for such cases. I don't have a strong opinion on >> whether that's worthwhile. It'd depend in part on how many FDWs there >> are that don't care, versus those that do; and I have no idea about that.
> So, I'd vote for leaving that for future work if necessary. Makes sense to me. > Here is a patch for that redesign proposed by you; reverts commits > fbe5a3fb73102c2cfec11aaaa4a67943f4474383 and > 5d4171d1c70edfe3e9be1de9e66603af28e3afe1, adds changes for that redesign > to the core, and adjusts the postgres_fdw code to that changes. Also, I > rearranged the postgres_fdw regression tests to match that changes. OK, I'll review this later today. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers