Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Date: 2011-10-26 17:25:32
Message-ID: 4EA8428C.7070601@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/26/2011 12:47 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> If that was what he meant, I'd vote against it. There are way too many
>> people who will *not* want their databases configured to be able to
>> reach out onto the net. This feature should be something that has to be
>> installed by explicit user action.
> That is not what I meant.
>
> I meant installed the shared library by defualt, but still require
> CREATE EXTENSION.
>

I don't see why it should be different from other standard modules, such
as citext or hstore, both of which have pretty wide use, and less
possible security implications than this.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-10-26 17:27:03 Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-10-26 17:09:34 Re: Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load