Обсуждение: Extend file_fdw wrapper
2011/10/10 pasman pasmański <pasman.p@gmail.com>: > Attached patch. ... and what are these new options intended to do? -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
At a quick glance, this patch seems to have an issue about priority. Which value is used if an option has been set both on a foreign table and a foreign server? Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for this kind of change. Regards, -- Shigeru Hanada
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:51:03PM +0900, Shigeru Hanada wrote: > At a quick glance, this patch seems to have an issue about priority. > Which value is used if an option has been set both on a foreign table > and a foreign server? I believe that the finer-grained setting should always override the coarser, so in this case, the setting for the table should take precedence over the setting for the server. > Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for > this kind of change. +1 :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On 10/10/2011 09:51 AM, Shigeru Hanada wrote: > At a quick glance, this patch seems to have an issue about priority. > Which value is used if an option has been set both on a foreign table > and a foreign server? > > Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for > this kind of change. > > I'm not even sure I understand why we should want this anyway. The closest analog I can think of to a more conventional server is that the whole file system is the foreign server, and there just don't seem to be any relevant options at that level. All the options being supplied seem much saner left as just foreign table options. cheers andrew
Hi. Current behaviour is error message when foreign table and foreign server have the same option defined. I don't know how to write regression test, may i read about it somewhere? -- ------------ pasman
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:23:51AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 10/10/2011 09:51 AM, Shigeru Hanada wrote: > >At a quick glance, this patch seems to have an issue about priority. > >Which value is used if an option has been set both on a foreign table > >and a foreign server? > > > >Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for > >this kind of change. > > I'm not even sure I understand why we should want this anyway. The > closest analog I can think of to a more conventional server is that > the whole file system is the foreign server, and there just don't > seem to be any relevant options at that level. All the options being > supplied seem much saner left as just foreign table options. You raise an excellent point, which is that there probably should be options at that level which override the (settable) generic file_fdw options. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On 10/10/2011 11:59 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:23:51AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> On 10/10/2011 09:51 AM, Shigeru Hanada wrote: >>> At a quick glance, this patch seems to have an issue about priority. >>> Which value is used if an option has been set both on a foreign table >>> and a foreign server? >>> >>> Also I think documents and regression tests would be required for >>> this kind of change. >> I'm not even sure I understand why we should want this anyway. The >> closest analog I can think of to a more conventional server is that >> the whole file system is the foreign server, and there just don't >> seem to be any relevant options at that level. All the options being >> supplied seem much saner left as just foreign table options. > You raise an excellent point, which is that there probably should be > options at that level which override the (settable) generic file_fdw > options. > > That's not my point at all. cheers andrew