Horton

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>

View thread
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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: 2012-03-07T20:44:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On tis, 2012-03-06 at 13:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> A bigger issue with postgresql_fdw_validator is that it supposes that
> the core backend is authoritative as to what options libpq supports,
> which is bad design on its face.  It would be much more sensible for
> dblink to be asking libpq what options libpq supports, say via
> PQconndefaults().

The validator for the proposed FDW suffers from the same problem.