Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Currently, the extensions patch considers that foreign data wrappers, >> foreign servers, and user mapping objects can all be parts of extensions. >> This is slightly problematic for pg_dump, where somebody decided to take >> a shortcut and not implement user mappings using the full DumpableObject >> infrastructure. That could be fixed, but I'm wondering whether it's >> worth the trouble. I can see the point of writing an FDW as an >> extension but it's a lot harder to see why either foreign server or user >> mapping objects would ever be part of an extension. So it might just be >> best to remove those two object types from the set that can be managed >> by an extension. >> >> Comments? > > I agree it's probably not that useful to make a foreign server or > foreign user mapping part of an extension, but I'd rather not have us > fail to support it just because we can't think of a use case right > now. So my vote would be to fix it.
I would have though that it could allow you to distribute internally at the system level the user mappings and server details, then have a DBA install it without exposing them the password or other details. Well, I don't recall offhand what you see as a superuser in the system view, but that could be a use case. Other than that, I confess I added the support just to try at being exhaustive. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
