| From: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2012-03-02 01:35:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4F5023E4.9090903@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/3/2 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>> with renaming to dblink_fdw_validator?
>
> Well, it's not the validator of the dblink_fdw, so maybe something like
> basic_postgresql_fdw_validator.
-1 for same reason. It's not the validator of basic_postgresql_fdw.
Using "fdw" in the name of validator which doesn't have actual FDW might
confuse users. Rather dblink_validator or libpq_option_validator is better?
One possible another idea is creating dblink_fdw which uses the
validator during "CREATE EXTENSION dblink" for users who store
connection information in FDW objects.
--
Shigeru Hanada
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-02 01:46:18 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-02 01:32:23 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |