Re: Feature proposal: www_fdw

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Why should this be a core feature, as the subject suggests? It could 
> just be an extension, like other FDWs, no?

In fact it had *better* be an extension, not core, because anything that
allows the server to go out and touch the web is going to be a security
hazard in some people's usages.  I can see that some people will want
this type of functionality, but others definitely won't.
        regards, tom lane