Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper

On 10/10/2011 11:59 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:23:51AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 10/10/2011 09:51 AM, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
>>> At a quick glance, this patch seems to have an issue about priority.
>>> Which value is used if an option has been set both on a foreign table
>>> and a foreign server?
>>>
>>> Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for
>>> this kind of change.
>> I'm not even sure I understand why we should want this anyway. The
>> closest analog I can think of to a more conventional server is that
>> the whole file system is the foreign server, and there just don't
>> seem to be any relevant options at that level. All the options being
>> supplied seem much saner left as just foreign table options.
> You raise an excellent point, which is that there probably should be
> options at that level which override the (settable) generic file_fdw
> options.
>
>

That's not my point at all.

cheers

andrew