From: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Move postgresql_fdw_validator into dblink |
Date: | 2012-10-31 01:20:07 |
Message-ID: | 25905A09-D7F0-4165-A6C6-BE135953CAF6@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry for long absence.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
> no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for
> Oracle.
> However, I doubt whether it is enough strong reason to force to
> solve the technical difficulty; naming conflicts with existing user
> visible features.
> Isn't it worth to consider to back to the pgsql_fdw_validator
> naming again?
AFAIR, in the discussion about naming of the new FDW, another
name postgres_fdw was suggested as well as postgresql_fdw, and
I chose longer one at that time. Perhaps only a few people
feel that "postgres" is shortened name of postgresql. How
about using postgres_fdw for PG-FDW?
Once we chose the different name, postgresql_fdw_validator can
be live with postgres_fdw, though their names seem little
confusing.
In addition, it would be worth mentioning that it's not
recommended to use postgresql_fdw_validator as validator of a
third-party's FDW to avoid dependency.
Regards,
--
Shigeru HANADA
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2012-10-31 03:14:19 | Re: Multiple --table options for other commands |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-10-31 00:21:55 | Re: Caching for stable expressions with constant arguments v6 |