From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: expand_dbname in postgres_fdw |
Date: | 2017-07-26 17:53:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobV0LpMaGHdip7DM+sUWVg99G_OfO09t4+pipEGVjS9_Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> According to F.34.1.1 at [1] passing connection string as dbname
> option should work, so your question is valid. I am not aware of any
> discussion around this on hackers. Comments in connect_pg_server()
> don't help either. But I guess, we expect users to set up individual
> foreign server and user mapping options instead of putting those in a
> connection string. I can not think of any reason except that it
> improves readability. If postgres_fdw wants to take certain actions
> based on the values of individual options, having them separate is
> easier to handle than parsing them out of a connection string.
>
> Any way, if we are not going to change current behaviour, we should
> change the documentation and say that option dbname means "database
> name" and not a connection string.
I kind of wonder if this had some security aspect to it? But not sure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-26 18:41:24 | Re: Change in "policy" on dump ordering? |
Previous Message | Sokolov Yura | 2017-07-26 17:28:28 | Re: Increase Vacuum ring buffer. |