On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:33:21PM +0900, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
> > IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
> > no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for
> > Oracle.
> > However, I doubt whether it is enough strong reason to force to
> > solve the technical difficulty; naming conflicts with existing user
> > visible features.
> > Isn't it worth to consider to back to the pgsql_fdw_validator
> > naming again?
>
> AFAIR, in the discussion about naming of the new FDW, another
> name postgres_fdw was suggested as well as postgresql_fdw, and I
> chose the one more familiar to me at that time. I think that only few
> people feel that "postgres" is shortened name of
> postgresql.
>
> How about using postgres_fdw for PG-FDW?
I couldn't agree more with Robert's comments[1]. Furthermore, this name only
shows up in calls to {CREATE|ALTER} FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER, which means 99.9% of
users would write "CREATE EXTENSION postgresql_fdw" and never even see the
name. I'd take "postgresql_fdw_whoops_names_are_a_big_commitment" if it meant
settling this issue 30 days earlier than we'd otherwise settle it.
Notwithstanding, I propose "postgresql.org/contrib/postgresql_fdw/validator".
Since the sole code that ought to reference the name lives in
contrib/postgresql_fdw/*.sql, the verbosity and double-quotation will cause no
appreciable harm. If anything, it will discourage ill-advised users.
Thanks,
nm
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobzOCV9RWUXO=xM_NkzrmPYZ0LgVuWhxyzueThZEqJHqw@mail.gmail.com
