| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pasman pasmański <pasman(dot)p(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper |
| Date: | 2011-10-10 14:23:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4E92FFF7.3020607@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/10/2011 09:51 AM, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
> At a quick glance, this patch seems to have an issue about priority.
> Which value is used if an option has been set both on a foreign table
> and a foreign server?
>
> Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for
> this kind of change.
>
>
I'm not even sure I understand why we should want this anyway. The
closest analog I can think of to a more conventional server is that the
whole file system is the foreign server, and there just don't seem to be
any relevant options at that level. All the options being supplied seem
much saner left as just foreign table options.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-10 14:26:23 | Re: [v9.2] DROP statement reworks |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2011-10-10 14:20:17 | Re: pgsql: Cascading replication feature for streaming log-based replicatio |