Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
Date
Msg-id CAFcNs+q-CrcSQPbNPi-SW1ZZLsgeAkkiD264PJ8zSGRzrPanyA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses RE: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:29 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > It seems to me that you would pass down just a string which gets
> > allocated for "options", and injection risks are something to be careful
> > about.  Another possibility would be an array with comma-separated
> > arguments, say:
> > options = 'option1=foo,option2=bar'
> > There is already some work done with comma-separated arguments for the
> > parameter "extensions", now that's more work.
>
> I like the direction of your thinking, but it seems to me that this
> would cause a problem if you want to set search_path=foo,bar.
>

Maybe we can use multiple "options". Something like:

... OPTIONS ( host 'remhost1', port '5433', dbname 'demodb', option='option1=foo', option='option2=bar' );

Regards,

--
   Fabrízio de Royes Mello         Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
   PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: More parallel pg_dump bogosities