From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables) |
Date: | 2013-03-15 03:07:33 |
Message-ID: | 19774.1363316853@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, watching the remote side's datestyle and intervalstyle and
>> matching them (for both input and output) would probably work.
> Alright, so I've been whacking at this and there's one interesting
> thing to ask about: saving and restoring the local GUCs. There are a
> bunch of things about GUCs besides their value that are maintained,
> such as their 'source', so writing a little ad-hoc save/restore is not
> going to do the right thing.
Right, you should use NewGUCNestLevel/AtEOXact_GUC. Look at the fixes
I committed in postgres_fdw a day or two ago for an example.
> So, I can add one more such use of AtEOXact_GUC for the dblink fix,
> but would it also be appropriate to find some new names for the
> concepts (instead of AtEOXact_GUC and isCommit) here to more
> accurately express what's going on?
Meh. I guess we could invent an "EndGUCNestLevel" that's a wrapper
around AtEOXact_GUC, but I'm not that excited about it ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-03-15 03:20:03 | Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-15 03:00:38 | Re: Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used |