X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796D453699 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:28:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08447-06 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 13:27:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A469D53223 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:27:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4BDRvCk003211; Wed, 11 May 2005 09:27:58 -0400 (EDT) To: Mischa Sandberg Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Partitioning / Clustering In-reply-to: <1115777953.42816ba1b4618@webmail.telus.net> References: <5F94B6EB-3925-4CD3-A67F-4310890B438A@advfn.com> <4280C801.80603@arbash-meinel.com> <1115762155.42812deb506d7@webmail.telus.net> <20050510221554.GR31103@decibel.org> <1115777953.42816ba1b4618@webmail.telus.net> Comments: In-reply-to Mischa Sandberg message dated "Tue, 10 May 2005 19:19:13 -0700" Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 09:27:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3210.1115818077@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.007 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200505/200 X-Sequence-Number: 12364 Mischa Sandberg writes: > So, simplicity dictates something like: > table pg_remote(schemaname text, connectby text, remoteschema text) Previous discussion of this sort of thing concluded that we wanted to follow the SQL-MED standard. regards, tom lane