Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(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: 2012-02-28 19:07:08
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On tis, 2012-02-28 at 11:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > [ snicker ]  But still, Peter has a point: pgsql is not a name for
> the
> > product, it's at best an abbreviation.  We aren't calling the other
> > thing orcl_fdw or ora_fdw.
> >
> > I think either postgres_fdw or postgresql_fdw would be fine.
> I liked the shorter name, myself, but I'm not going to make a big deal
> about it.

Let's at least be clear about the reasons here.  The fact that
postgresql_fdw_validator exists means (a) there is a possible naming
conflict that has not been discussed yet, and/or (b) the name is already
settled and we need to think of a way to make postgresql_fdw_validator
work with the new actual FDW.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-02-28 19:15:30
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade --logfile option documentation
Previous:From: Daniel FarinaDate: 2012-02-28 19:00:11
Subject: Re: Runtime SHAREDIR for testing CREATE EXTENSION

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group