Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server
Date
Msg-id 1331153078.12416.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On tis, 2012-03-06 at 13:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> A bigger issue with postgresql_fdw_validator is that it supposes that
> the core backend is authoritative as to what options libpq supports,
> which is bad design on its face.  It would be much more sensible for
> dblink to be asking libpq what options libpq supports, say via
> PQconndefaults().

The validator for the proposed FDW suffers from the same problem.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: CLUSTER VERBOSE (9.1.3)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: WARNING: concurrent insert in progress within table "resource"