| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | "Shinoda, Noriyoshi" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module |
| Date: | 2018-08-27 18:34:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYchFefbb2uSx_vL10xO_6j76R3GjcfBfYKJjigpxMYPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:29 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> It seems to me that you would pass down just a string which gets
> allocated for "options", and injection risks are something to be careful
> about. Another possibility would be an array with comma-separated
> arguments, say:
> options = 'option1=foo,option2=bar'
> There is already some work done with comma-separated arguments for the
> parameter "extensions", now that's more work.
I like the direction of your thinking, but it seems to me that this
would cause a problem if you want to set search_path=foo,bar.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2018-08-27 18:53:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-27 17:58:11 | Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities |