Re: Extension support for postgres_fdw

On 6/20/15 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Note that no matter what the details are, something like this is putting
> the onus on the DBA to mark as transmittable only functions that actually
> are safe to transmit, ie they exist*and have identical semantics* on the
> remote. I think that's fine as long as it's clearly documented.

That seems like potentially a lot of extra work. We have the actual
function body/definition for all but C functions, perhaps we could
automatically map calls when the definitions are identical.

I think that could operate safely in addition to manual specification
though, so presumably this could be added later.

> (Presumably, only immutable functions would get transmitted, even if there
> are mutable functions present in a marked extension.)

+1
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com