| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [17] CREATE SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER |
| Date: | 2023-09-01 06:58:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAExHW5unvpDv6yMSmqurHP7Du1PqoJFWVxeK-4YNm5EnoNJiSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:47 AM Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 8/31/23 12:52, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-08-31 at 10:59 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >> The server's FDW has to be postgres_fdw. So we have to handle the
> >> awkward dependency between core and postgres_fdw (an extension).
> >
> > That sounds more than just "awkward". I can't think of any precedent
> > for that and it seems to violate the idea of an "extension" entirely.
> >
> > Can you explain more concretely how we might resolve that?
>
>
> Maybe move postgres_fdw to be a first class built in feature instead of
> an extension?
Yes, that's one way.
Thinking larger, how about we allow any FDW to be used here. We might
as well, allow extensions to start logical receivers which accept
changes from non-PostgreSQL databases. So we don't have to make an
exception for postgres_fdw. But I think there's some value in bringing
together these two subsystems which deal with foreign data logically
(as in logical vs physical view of data).
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2023-09-01 07:13:42 | Assert failure in ATPrepAddPrimaryKey |
| Previous Message | tender wang | 2023-09-01 06:07:37 | Re: Improve heapgetpage() performance, overhead from serializable |