Re: FDW for PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FDW for PostgreSQL
Date: 2013-02-16 23:44:45
Message-ID: 20946.1361058285@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Continuing to look at this patch ... I'm wondering if any particular
discussion went into choosing the FDW option names "nspname", "relname",
and "colname". These don't seem to me like names that we ought to be
exposing at the SQL command level. Why not just "schema", "table",
"column"? Or perhaps "schema_name", "table_name", "column_name" if you
feel it's essential to distinguish that these are names.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-02-16 23:53:20 Re: src/ports/pgcheckdir.c - Ignore dot directories...
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-02-16 20:47:08 Re: JSON Function Bike Shedding