| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP) |
| Date: | 2009-08-19 15:29:24 |
| Message-ID: | 22571.1250695764@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/8/19 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> I don't believe there is any consensus for integrating dblink into core,
>> and I for one will resist that strongly. Keep it in contrib.
> if integration means, so I could to write query like
> SELECT * FROM otherdatabase.schema.table ....
> UPDATE otherdb.table SET ...
> I am for integration.
That is not what "integrating dblink" means --- what Itagaki-san is
talking about is moving the dblink_xxx functions into core. What
you are talking about is actual SQL/MED functionality, which we should
indeed try to get into core someday. But dblink is a dead end as far
as standards compliance goes. Between that and the potential security
issues, we should not put it in core.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-08-19 15:32:56 | Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-08-19 15:24:19 | Re: FDW-based dblink (WIP) |