Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support
Date
Msg-id 3422.1437055570@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support  (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> On 2015-07-16 PM 12:43, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The basic issue here is "how can a user control which functions/operators
>> can be sent for remote execution?".  While it's certainly true that
>> sometimes you might want function-by-function control of that, Paul's
>> point was that extension-level granularity would be extremely convenient
>> for PostGIS, and probably for other extensions.

> Perhaps just paranoid but is the extension version number any significant?

In any scenario for user control of sending functions to the far end, it's
on the user's head to make sure that he's telling us the truth about which
functions are compatible between local and remote servers.  That would
extend to checking cross-version compatibility if he's running different
versions, too.  We already have risks of that kind with built-in
functions, really, and I've not heard complaints about it.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support