Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP)

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 15:38:38
Message-ID: 4A8C1C7E.6040404@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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. Â 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.

+1

Joe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2009-08-19 15:43:50 Re: REGRESS_OPTS versus MSVC build scripts
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2009-08-19 15:32:56 Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP)