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

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1wOGSZyCdv5HpWXhgZqwoYXsV0PB9SLKbzJW9Sv0JeSUg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 9:17 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 05/09/2018 18:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 01/09/2018 06:33, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan GCS Delivery) wrote:
>> Certainly the PQconndefaults function specifies Debug flag for the "options" option.
>> I think that eliminating the Debug flag is the simplest solution.
>> For attached patches, GUC can be specified with the following syntax.
>>
>> CREATE SERVER remsvr1 FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw OPTIONS (host 'host 1', ..., options '-c work_mem=64MB -c geqo=off');
>> ALTER SERVER remsv11 OPTIONS (SET options '-c work_mem=64MB -c geqo=off');
>>
>> However, I am afraid of the effect that this patch will change the behavior of official API PQconndefaults.
>
> It doesn't change the behavior of the API, it just changes the result of
> the API function, which is legitimate and the reason we have the API
> function in the first place.
>
> I think this patch is fine.  I'll work on committing it.

I have committed just the libpq change.  The documentation change was
redundant, because the documentation already stated that all libpq
options are accepted.  (Arguably, the documentation was wrong before.)

Since the effect of this commit was to make postgres_fdw actually comply with its documentation,
should this have been back-patched?  Is there a danger in backpatching this change to libpq to older versions?

This seems like more of a bug fix than an added feature.

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: non-exclusive backup cleanup is mildly broken
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix possible underflow in expression (maxoff - 1)