Horton

Thread

  1. Extend file_fdw wrapper

    pasman pasmański <pasman.p@gmail.com> — 2011-10-10T07:08:42Z

    Attached patch.




------------
pasman

  2. Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper

    Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> — 2011-10-10T07:24:59Z

    2011/10/10 pasman pasmański <pasman.p@gmail.com>:
> Attached patch.

... and what are these new options intended to do?

-- 
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

  3. Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper

    Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com> — 2011-10-10T13:51:03Z

    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.

Regards,
-- 
Shigeru Hanada

  4. Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper

    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> — 2011-10-10T13:57:39Z

    On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:51:03PM +0900, 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?

I believe that the finer-grained setting should always override the
coarser, so in this case, the setting for the table should take
precedence over the setting for the server.

> Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for
> this kind of change.

+1 :)

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

  5. Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2011-10-10T14:23:51Z

    
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.


cheers

andrew

  6. Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper

    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> — 2011-10-10T15:59:28Z

    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.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

  7. Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2011-10-10T16:04:30Z

    
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