Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Daniel Farina
Тема Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Дата
Msg-id CAAZKuFZc-VXxX7Fk4TR5hXmQccApmK_WhN5Z9vaUsU8H2eXxWA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> BTW, it strikes me that dblink is probably subject to at least some of
> these same failure modes.  I'm not personally volunteering to fix any
> of this in dblink, but maybe someone ought to look into that.

I will try to make time for this, although it seems like the general
approach should match pgsql_fdw if possible.  Is the current thinking
to forward the settings and then use the GUC hooks to track updates?

--
fdr

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Следующее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]