Re: Move postgresql_fdw_validator into dblink

2013/1/18 Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On 11/16/2012 08:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:33:21PM +0900, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
> no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for
> Oracle.
> However, I doubt whether it is enough strong reason to force to
> solve the technical difficulty; naming conflicts with existing user
> visible features.
> Isn't it worth to consider to back to the pgsql_fdw_validator
> naming again?
>
> AFAIR, in the discussion about naming of the new FDW, another
> name postgres_fdw was suggested as well as postgresql_fdw, and I
> chose the one more familiar to me at that time. I think that only few
> people feel that "postgres" is shortened name of
> postgresql.
>
> How about using postgres_fdw for PG-FDW?
>
> I couldn't agree more with Robert's comments[1]. Furthermore, this name
> only
> shows up in calls to {CREATE|ALTER} FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER, which means 99.9%
> of
> users would write "CREATE EXTENSION postgresql_fdw" and never even see the
> name. I'd take "postgresql_fdw_whoops_names_are_a_big_commitment" if it
> meant
> settling this issue 30 days earlier than we'd otherwise settle it.
>
> Notwithstanding, I propose
> "postgresql.org/contrib/postgresql_fdw/validator".
> Since the sole code that ought to reference the name lives in
> contrib/postgresql_fdw/*.sql, the verbosity and double-quotation will cause
> no
> appreciable harm. If anything, it will discourage ill-advised users.
>
> Was there any further progress on this? Committing of the postgresql_fdw
> seems to be stalled on a naming issue that has a couple of reasonable
> resolutions available, and it'd be nice to get it in as a contrib module.
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=940
>
The current patch adopts "postgres_fdw" as name; that does never conflict
with existing functions, and well means what does this extension provide.
Previously, it was named "pgsql_fdw" but it was unpopular because of some
reasons; such as we don't call Oracle as Ora, why we call postgresql as pgsql?

I think, both of naming are good. It will give right impression for users about
functionality of this extension, and also add a new killer feature to v9.3.
If we spent waste of time for this topic any more, nobody will get happy.

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>