Horton

Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server

Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, 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: 2012-03-01T11:56:02Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

(2012/03/01 0:33), Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't think that creating such a dependency is acceptable.
> Even if we didn't mind the dependency, you said yourself that
> contrib/postgresql_fdw's validator will accept stuff that's not
> appropriate for dblink.

Agreed.  I think that these two contrib modules (and all FDW modules)
should have individual validator for each to avoid undesirable
dependency and naming conflict, and such validator function should be
inside each module, but not in core.

How about moving postgresql_fdw_validator into dblink, with renaming to
dblink_fdw_validator?  Attached patch achieves such changes.  I've left
postgresql_fdw_validator" in foreign_data regression test section, so
that foreign_data section can still check whether FDW DDLs invoke
validator function.  I used the name "postgresql_fdw_validator" for test
validator to make change as little as possible.

This change requires dblink to have new function, so its version should
be bumped to 1.1.

These changes have no direct relation to PostgreSQL FDW, so this patch
can be applied by itself.  If this patch has been applied, I'll rename
pgsql_fdw to postgresql_fdw which contains product name fully spelled out.

-- 
Shigeru Hanada