| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
| Date: | 2012-03-07 20:44:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1331153078.12416.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2012-03-06 at 13:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> A bigger issue with postgresql_fdw_validator is that it supposes that
> the core backend is authoritative as to what options libpq supports,
> which is bad design on its face. It would be much more sensible for
> dblink to be asking libpq what options libpq supports, say via
> PQconndefaults().
The validator for the proposed FDW suffers from the same problem.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-07 20:44:58 | Re: WARNING: concurrent insert in progress within table "resource" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-07 20:42:15 | Re: CLUSTER VERBOSE (9.1.3) |