On tis, 2012-03-06 at 13:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> A bigger issue with postgresql_fdw_validator is that it supposes that
> the core backend is authoritative as to what options libpq supports,
> which is bad design on its face.  It would be much more sensible for
> dblink to be asking libpq what options libpq supports, say via
> PQconndefaults().

The validator for the proposed FDW suffers from the same problem.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to