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

Re: dblink vs SQL/MED

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: dblink vs SQL/MED
Date: 2008-12-29 12:40:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Saturday 20 December 2008 19:33:17 Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > SQL/MED catalog manipulation facilities
> >
> > This doesn't do any remote or external things yet, but it gives modules
> > like plproxy and dblink a standardized and future-proof system for
> > managing their connection information.
> It seems this is a pile of pretty useless code, so far as the core
> distribution is concerned, unless somebody fixes dblink to use it.
> Is that on anyone's radar for 8.4?

Martin had sent some code for that with his original patch series.  I or 
someone can review that next.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-12-29 12:49:04
Subject: Re: About CMake (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Append major version number and for libraries soname major)
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-12-29 12:25:47
Subject: Re: Gcc 4.4 causes abort in plpython.

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