Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> On 2015-07-16 PM 12:43, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The basic issue here is "how can a user control which functions/operators
>>> can be sent for remote execution?". While it's certainly true that
>>> sometimes you might want function-by-function control of that, Paul's
>>> point was that extension-level granularity would be extremely convenient
>>> for PostGIS, and probably for other extensions.
>
>> Perhaps just paranoid but is the extension version number any significant?
>
> In any scenario for user control of sending functions to the far end, it's
> on the user's head to make sure that he's telling us the truth about which
> functions are compatible between local and remote servers. That would
> extend to checking cross-version compatibility if he's running different
> versions, too. We already have risks of that kind with built-in
> functions, really, and I've not heard complaints about it.
>

Yeah, that's true.

Thanks,
Amit