Foreign servers and user mappings versus the extensions patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Foreign servers and user mappings versus the extensions patch
Date: 2011-02-05 22:41:58
Message-ID: 18489.1296945718@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Currently, the extensions patch considers that foreign data wrappers,
foreign servers, and user mapping objects can all be parts of extensions.
This is slightly problematic for pg_dump, where somebody decided to take
a shortcut and not implement user mappings using the full DumpableObject
infrastructure. That could be fixed, but I'm wondering whether it's
worth the trouble. I can see the point of writing an FDW as an
extension but it's a lot harder to see why either foreign server or user
mapping objects would ever be part of an extension. So it might just be
best to remove those two object types from the set that can be managed
by an extension.

Comments?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2011-02-06 00:01:30 Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw
Previous Message Cédric Villemain 2011-02-05 22:04:48 Re: limiting hint bit I/O