Re: Questions and experiences writing a Foreign Data Wrapper

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Questions and experiences writing a Foreign Data Wrapper
Date: 2011-07-23 14:42:36
Message-ID: 2426.1311432156@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> What does the standard say?

Well, there is not a statement in so many words that you have to have a
relevant USER MAPPING to use a foreign table. But the spec does specify
that an FDW's ConnectServer function takes a UserHandle as one input
parameter and should throw an exception if that handle isn't valid.
And as far as I can tell a UserHandle can only be created from a
relevant USER MAPPING entry. So I think the behavior I'm arguing for
would emerge from an FDW that was built using the spec-defined API.
We only have an opportunity to argue about it because we chose to
invent our own FDW API.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-07-23 14:45:16 Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-07-23 13:19:32 Re: Problem with pg_upgrade's directory write check on Windows