From: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Shigeru HANADA <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql_fdw in contrib |
Date: | 2012-07-13 03:03:59 |
Message-ID: | CADyhKSUXNh2jA=rR0KJPRQ0szBemCAcgvxVZHece41WsCdfg9g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/7/13 Shigeru HANADA <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> (2012/07/12 20:48), Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> It seems to me what postgresql_fdw_validator() is doing looks like
>> a function to be named as "libpq_fdw_validator()".
>>
>> How about your opinion? It will help this namespace conflicts.
>
> I'd prefer dblink_fdw_validator.
>
> The name "libpq_fdw_validator" impresses me that a concrete FDW named
> "libpq_fdw" is somewhere and it retrieves external data *from* libpq.
> Indeed postgresql_fdw_validator allows only some of libpq options at the
> moment, but we won't be able to rename it for backward compatibility
> even if it wants to have non-libpq options in the future.
>
> IMO basically each FDW validator should be owned by a particular FDW,
> because in most cases validator should know FDW's internal deeply. In
> addition, it would want to have new options for new features.
>
> Besides naming, as mentioned upthread, removing hard-coded libpq options
> list from dblink and leaving it to libpq client library would make
> dblink more robust about libpq option changes in future.
>
OK, it seems to me fair enough.
Does someone have different opinions?
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2012-07-13 03:35:12 | Re: pgsql_fdw in contrib |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-13 02:52:14 | Re: has_language_privilege returns incorrect answer for non-superuser |