Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Farina
Subject Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Date
Msg-id CAAZKuFZc-VXxX7Fk4TR5hXmQccApmK_WhN5Z9vaUsU8H2eXxWA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> BTW, it strikes me that dblink is probably subject to at least some of
> these same failure modes.  I'm not personally volunteering to fix any
> of this in dblink, but maybe someone ought to look into that.

I will try to make time for this, although it seems like the general
approach should match pgsql_fdw if possible.  Is the current thinking
to forward the settings and then use the GUC hooks to track updates?

--
fdr



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]