(2011/10/26 23:57), Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> 2011/10/26 Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
>> I agree. pgsql_fdw will be a nice feature, but there's no reason to
>> think that everyone will want it installed by default, and there are
>> some security reasons to think that they might not. On the flip side,
>> pushing it out of contrib and onto pgfoundry or whatever makes it
>> unnecessarily difficult to install, and not as many people will
>> benefit from it. So contrib seems exactly right to me.
>>
> I also agree. The pgsql_fdw will be worthful to locate in the main tree
> as a contrib module. It will give us clear opportunity to test new
> features of FDW using RDBMS characteristics; such as join-push-down.
> However, it should be a separated discussion whether it shall be installed
> by the default.
There seems to be some approvals on pushing pgsql_fdw into main tree
(contrib or core extension, or something else), but not an external
module. There are still some debatable issues, but they would be
meaningless unless pgsql_fdw is qualified for a contrib module. So I'd
like to continue the development of pgsql_fdw as contrib module, at
least for a while.
Please find attached a patch for pgsql_fdw. This patch needs first two
patches attached to OP[1] to be applied. (Sorry. gathering patches from
another post must be bothersome work. Should I create new CF items for
fundamental patches?)
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-10/msg01329.php
Changes done since last post are:
* add colname FDW option support
* allow some libpq options (authtype and tty) to be specified as server
FDW options
--
Shigeru Hanada
* ポルトガル語 - 自動検出
* 英語
* 日本語
* 英語
* 日本語
<javascript:void(0);>