| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Questions and experiences writing a Foreign Data Wrapper |
| Date: | 2011-07-22 14:01:41 |
| Message-ID: | 8897.1311343301@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 22.07.2011 11:08, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> Or is a user mapping intended to be the only source of
>> connection information?
> No, you can specify connection details at per-server and
> per-foreign-table level too. The FDW implementation is free to accept or
> reject options where-ever it wants.
Well, if we are going to take that viewpoint, then not having a user
mapping *shouldn't* be an error, for any use-case. What would be an
error would be not having the foreign-user-name-or-equivalent specified
anywhere in the applicable options, but it's up to the FDW to notice and
complain about that.
I am not, however, convinced that that's a legitimate reading of the SQL
spec. Surely user mappings are meant to constrain which users can
connect to a given foreign server.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2011-07-22 14:17:01 | Re: Parameterized aggregate subquery (was: Pull up aggregate subquery) |
| Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2011-07-22 13:13:01 | Re: Parameterized aggregate subquery (was: Pull up aggregate subquery) |