Horton

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com>
Date: 2012-02-28T19:07:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On tis, 2012-02-28 at 11:20 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > [ snicker ]  But still, Peter has a point: pgsql is not a name for
> the
> > product, it's at best an abbreviation.  We aren't calling the other
> > thing orcl_fdw or ora_fdw.
> >
> > I think either postgres_fdw or postgresql_fdw would be fine.
> 
> I liked the shorter name, myself, but I'm not going to make a big deal
> about it.

Let's at least be clear about the reasons here.  The fact that
postgresql_fdw_validator exists means (a) there is a possible naming
conflict that has not been discussed yet, and/or (b) the name is already
settled and we need to think of a way to make postgresql_fdw_validator
work with the new actual FDW.