On tis, 2012-02-28 at 11:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > [ snicker ] But still, Peter has a point: pgsql is not a name for
> > product, it's at best an abbreviation. We aren't calling the other
> > thing orcl_fdw or ora_fdw.
> > I think either postgres_fdw or postgresql_fdw would be fine.
> I liked the shorter name, myself, but I'm not going to make a big deal
> about it.
Let's at least be clear about the reasons here. The fact that
postgresql_fdw_validator exists means (a) there is a possible naming
conflict that has not been discussed yet, and/or (b) the name is already
settled and we need to think of a way to make postgresql_fdw_validator
work with the new actual FDW.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2012-02-28 19:15:30|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation|
|Previous:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2012-02-28 19:00:11|
|Subject: Re: Runtime SHAREDIR for testing CREATE EXTENSION|