Sorry for long absence.
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 longer one at that time. Perhaps only a few people
feel that "postgres" is shortened name of postgresql. How
about using postgres_fdw for PG-FDW?
Once we chose the different name, postgresql_fdw_validator can
be live with postgres_fdw, though their names seem little
confusing.
In addition, it would be worth mentioning that it's not
recommended to use postgresql_fdw_validator as validator of a
third-party's FDW to avoid dependency.
Regards,
--
Shigeru HANADA
