Re: Questions and experiences writing a Foreign Data Wrapper

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On 22.07.2011 11:08, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>>> Or is a user mapping intended to be the only source of
>>> connection information?
>
>> No, you can specify connection details at per-server and
>> per-foreign-table level too. The FDW implementation is free to accept or
>> reject options where-ever it wants.
>
> Well, if we are going to take that viewpoint, then not having a user
> mapping *shouldn't* be an error, for any use-case.  What would be an
> error would be not having the foreign-user-name-or-equivalent specified
> anywhere in the applicable options, but it's up to the FDW to notice and
> complain about that.

+1.

> I am not, however, convinced that that's a legitimate reading of the SQL
> spec.  Surely user mappings are meant to constrain which users can
> connect to a given foreign server.

Surely that's the job for the table's ACL, no?

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