Re: dblink_ora - a first shot on Oracle ...

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, EG <EG(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: dblink_ora - a first shot on Oracle ...
Date: 2003-07-21 14:48:22
Message-ID: 3F1BFD36.70200@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I tend to agree with Peter: if dblink is going to start depending on
> stuff outside Postgres, it ought to be become a separate project,
> if only to simplify distribution and configuration issues.
>
> Perhaps it could be split into two parts, a PG-specific part and
> a cross-DBMS part?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> PS: Has anyone looked any further at the SQL-MED standard? ISTM that's
> where we ought to head in the long run.

I think for that very reason (SQL-MED) we need to come to terms with
this issue. If/when connections to external data sources is in the
backend, you'll have those exact same dependencies. And in fact, we do
today: consider '--with-openssl' or '--with-tcl'.

I had always assumed we would need '--with-oracle', '--with-jdbc', etc
(or whatever you want to call them) to support backend connections to
external sources. And this discussion is the very reason I was hesitant
to pursue dblink_ora or jdbclink now, because I didn't think people
would be comfortable with configure options to support a contrib library.

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-07-21 15:09:31 Re: dblink_ora - a first shot on Oracle ...
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-07-21 14:16:33 Re: dblink_ora - a first shot on Oracle ...