| From: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/MED dummy vs postgresql wrapper |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 02:08:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20090107103521.80FB.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> We could just use the dummy wrapper and set an
> option for the foreign data wrapper that tells what options are valid. That
> is, you would say
>
> CREATE FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgresql_dummy LIBRARY 'dummy_fdw' LANGUAGE C
> OPTIONS (valid_options '{host,port,dbname,user,password...}');
Looks reasonable, but is 'dummy_fdw' a proper name for it?
I think 'template_fdw' or something might be better.
If we will complete 'postgres_fdw' as a replacement of dblink, the fdw
will not need the flexibility because it should accept only valid
parameters for PostgreSQL. Then, 'dummy_fdw' might be kept only for
user-defined FDWs. Since users see the library name, we'd better to
choose more suitable name for it.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-01-07 02:13:17 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: This makes all the \dX commands (most importantly to most: \df) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-07 01:51:05 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: This makes all the \dX commands (most importantly to most: \df) |