From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, pasman pasmański <pasman(dot)p(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper |
Date: | 2011-10-10 16:04:30 |
Message-ID: | 4E93178E.6030301@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-10 16:14:06 | Re: patch: move dumpUserConfig call in dumpRoles function of pg_dumpall.c |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2011-10-10 15:59:28 | Re: Extend file_fdw wrapper |