Re: FDW table hints
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Susanne Ebrecht <susanne@2ndquadrant.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-05T17:14:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- foreign_table_index.patch (text/x-patch) patch
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 16:19, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Susanne Ebrecht >> <susanne@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> When we make such a hint for foreign tables then we should make a similar >>> hint for views. > >> A view really isn't a table, unlike a foreign table, so I don't think >> that argument holds. > > Well, from the implementation standpoint a foreign table is a lot more > like a view than it is like a table. I think the real point is that a > hint for this on views would be a waste of translator manpower, because > we've not heard of anyone making that mistake. The *implementation* is in this case, IMHO; irrelevant. The relevant part is what it looks like to the *user*, and to the user a foreign table looks a lot more like a table than a view does. Since I brought it up - a patch along this line? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/