(2012/03/08 6:16), Joe Abbate wrote:
> Does that make sense? And if so, will it make sense in the future
> (considering potential FDW developments)?
I think that makes, and will make sense. Because SQL/MED standard
mentions about schema for only foreign table in "4.12 SQL-schemas" section.
FYI, pgAdmin III shows them as a tree like:
Database
FDW
Server
User Mapping
Schema
Foreign Table
> A related question was whether user mapping options, which may include
> sensitive data such as passwords, should be output by default. I'm not
> sure if this should extend to other FDW-related options, since a server
> option could presumably be a URI that includes logon information.
FDW options of user mappings are hidden from non-superusers for security
reason. So, I think it's reasonable to show every visible option for
the user who is used for the dbtoyaml invocation.
I'm not sure about other object types, but IMO secure information such
as URI which includes password should be stored in user mappings rather
than servers.
Regards,
--
Shigeru Hanada