Re: Foreign servers and user mappings versus the extensions patch

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Currently, the extensions patch considers that foreign data wrappers,
> foreign servers, and user mapping objects can all be parts of extensions.
> This is slightly problematic for pg_dump, where somebody decided to take
> a shortcut and not implement user mappings using the full DumpableObject
> infrastructure.  That could be fixed, but I'm wondering whether it's
> worth the trouble.  I can see the point of writing an FDW as an
> extension but it's a lot harder to see why either foreign server or user
> mapping objects would ever be part of an extension.  So it might just be
> best to remove those two object types from the set that can be managed
> by an extension.
>
> Comments?

I agree it's probably not that useful to make a foreign server or
foreign user mapping part of an extension, but I'd rather not have us
fail to support it just because we can't think of a use case right
now. So my vote would be to fix it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company