Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> I will try to make time for this, although it seems like the general
> approach should match pgsql_fdw if possible. Is the current thinking
> to forward the settings and then use the GUC hooks to track updates?
That's not what I had in mind for postgres_fdw --- rather the idea is to
avoid needing on-the-fly changes in remote-side settings, because those
are so expensive to make. However, postgres_fdw is fortunate in that
the SQL it expects to execute on the remote side is very constrained.
dblink might need a different solution that would leave room for
user-driven changes of remote-side settings.
regards, tom lane