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

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Date: 2012-02-29 15:33:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> How about removing postgresql_fdw_validator from backend binary, and
> changing dblink to use contrib/postgresql_fdw's validator?  It breaks
> some backward compatibility and requires contrib/postgresql_fdw to be
> installed before using contrib/dblink with foreign servers, but ISTM
> that it doesn't become so serious.

I don't think that creating such a dependency is acceptable.
Even if we didn't mind the dependency, you said yourself that
contrib/postgresql_fdw's validator will accept stuff that's not
appropriate for dblink.

If we don't think postgresql_fdw_validator belongs in core after all,
we should just move it to dblink.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-29 15:42:17
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2012-02-29 15:30:12
Subject: Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2

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