| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: validating foreign tables |
| Date: | 2011-02-22 01:59:34 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikqMDM_2frnz0B5Ec9+7ivpx-xSagsuVdRL9ThD@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:12, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> The API for FDW validators doesn't appear to have any way that the
>>> validator function can check that the defined foreign table shape
>>> matches the FDW options sanely.
>>
>> Huh? The options ought to be orthogonal to the table column info.
>> If they're not, maybe you need to rethink your option definitions.
>
> Well, let's take a couple of cases.
>
> 1. My old favorite, file as a text array.
> 2. A hypothetical RSS feed, where the options specify which RSS fields we
> want.
I think we need to overhaul validators in 9.2 listening to FDW developers'
opinions anyway. The text array is an example, but there should be many
other requirements. Personally, I'd like to have a method to list available
options from SQL. We should also consider column-level options for foreign
tables then.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-02-22 02:25:04 | Re: TODO: You can alter it, but you can't view it |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-22 01:12:39 | Re: validating foreign tables |