On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:47 AM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/31/23 12:52, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-08-31 at 10:59 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >> The server's FDW has to be postgres_fdw. So we have to handle the
> >> awkward dependency between core and postgres_fdw (an extension).
> >
> > That sounds more than just "awkward". I can't think of any precedent
> > for that and it seems to violate the idea of an "extension" entirely.
> >
> > Can you explain more concretely how we might resolve that?
>
>
> Maybe move postgres_fdw to be a first class built in feature instead of
> an extension?
Yes, that's one way.
Thinking larger, how about we allow any FDW to be used here. We might
as well, allow extensions to start logical receivers which accept
changes from non-PostgreSQL databases. So we don't have to make an
exception for postgres_fdw. But I think there's some value in bringing
together these two subsystems which deal with foreign data logically
(as in logical vs physical view of data).
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat