2012/7/13 Shigeru HANADA <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>:
> (2012/07/12 20:48), Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> It seems to me what postgresql_fdw_validator() is doing looks like
>> a function to be named as "libpq_fdw_validator()".
>>
>> How about your opinion? It will help this namespace conflicts.
>
> I'd prefer dblink_fdw_validator.
>
> The name "libpq_fdw_validator" impresses me that a concrete FDW named
> "libpq_fdw" is somewhere and it retrieves external data *from* libpq.
> Indeed postgresql_fdw_validator allows only some of libpq options at the
> moment, but we won't be able to rename it for backward compatibility
> even if it wants to have non-libpq options in the future.
>
> IMO basically each FDW validator should be owned by a particular FDW,
> because in most cases validator should know FDW's internal deeply. In
> addition, it would want to have new options for new features.
>
> Besides naming, as mentioned upthread, removing hard-coded libpq options
> list from dblink and leaving it to libpq client library would make
> dblink more robust about libpq option changes in future.
>
OK, it seems to me fair enough.
Does someone have different opinions?
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>