| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP) |
| Date: | 2009-08-19 15:32:56 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790908190832w4076b331oad5353534b543e6a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/8/19 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2009/8/19 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> I don't believe there is any consensus for integrating dblink into core,
>>> and I for one will resist that strongly. Keep it in contrib.
>
>> if integration means, so I could to write query like
>> SELECT * FROM otherdatabase.schema.table ....
>> UPDATE otherdb.table SET ...
>> I am for integration.
>
> That is not what "integrating dblink" means --- what Itagaki-san is
> talking about is moving the dblink_xxx functions into core. What
> you are talking about is actual SQL/MED functionality, which we should
> indeed try to get into core someday. But dblink is a dead end as far
> as standards compliance goes. Between that and the potential security
> issues, we should not put it in core.
>
aha, - ok
regards
Pavel Stehule
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2009-08-19 15:38:38 | Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-19 15:29:24 | Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP) |