Re: expand_dbname in postgres_fdw

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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.