Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Date: 2013-03-12 18:51:17
Message-ID: 24082.1363114277@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> Okay, I see. So inverting the thinking I wrote earlier: how about
> hearkening carefully to any ParameterStatus messages on the local side
> before entering the inner loop of dblink.c:materializeResult as to set
> the local GUC (and carefully dropping it back off after
> materializeResult) so that the the _in functions can evaluate the
> input in the same relevant GUC context as the remote side?

Yeah, watching the remote side's datestyle and intervalstyle and
matching them (for both input and output) would probably work.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-03-12 19:01:20 Re: Incorrect handling of timezones with extract
Previous Message Daniel Farina 2013-03-12 17:40:51 Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)