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

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 10:37:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2012/2/29 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> (2012/02/29 4:07), Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Let's at least be clear about the reasons here.  The fact that
>> postgresql_fdw_validator exists means (a) there is a possible naming
>> conflict that has not been discussed yet, and/or (b) the name is already
>> settled and we need to think of a way to make postgresql_fdw_validator
>> work with the new actual FDW.
> We can avoid conflict of name by using postgres_fdw or pgsql_fdw, but it
> doesn't solve fundamental issue.  ISTM that maintaining two similar
> validators is wasteful and confusing, and FDW for PostgreSQL should be
> just one, at least in the context of core distribution.
> Current pgsql_fdw_validator accepts every FDW options which is accepted
> by postgresql_fdw_validator, and additionally accepts FDW specific
> options such as fetch_count.  So, if dblink can ignore unknown FDW
> options, pgsql_fdw_validator can be used to create foreign servers for
> dblink connection.
> 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.


pavel stehule

> Of course dblink is still available by itself if user specifies
> connection information with "key = value" string, not with server name.
> One concern is how to avoid duplicated list of valid libpq options.
> Adding new libpq function, like below, which returns 1 when given name
> is a valid libpq option would help.
>    int PQisValidOption(const char *keyword);
> --
> Shigeru Hanada
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-02-29 10:48:36
Subject: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover
Previous:From: Shigeru HanadaDate: 2012-02-29 10:34:23
Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

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