On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:23:51AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 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.
You raise an excellent point, which is that there probably should be
options at that level which override the (settable) generic file_fdw
options.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
