Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)

From: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Date: 2013-03-11 20:52:23
Message-ID: CAAZKuFZc-VXxX7Fk4TR5hXmQccApmK_WhN5Z9vaUsU8H2eXxWA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> BTW, it strikes me that dblink is probably subject to at least some of
> these same failure modes. I'm not personally volunteering to fix any
> of this in dblink, but maybe someone ought to look into that.

I will try to make time for this, although it seems like the general
approach should match pgsql_fdw if possible. Is the current thinking
to forward the settings and then use the GUC hooks to track updates?

--
fdr

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2013-03-11 22:27:55 Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-03-11 19:30:01 Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)