Sorry for long absence. On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was > no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for > Oracle. > However, I doubt whether it is enough strong reason to force to > solve the technical difficulty; naming conflicts with existing user > visible features. > Isn't it worth to consider to back to the pgsql_fdw_validator > naming again?
AFAIR, in the discussion about naming of the new FDW, another name postgres_fdw was suggested as well as postgresql_fdw, and I chose longer one at that time. Perhaps only a few people feel that "postgres" is shortened name of postgresql. How about using postgres_fdw for PG-FDW? Once we chose the different name, postgresql_fdw_validator can be live with postgres_fdw, though their names seem little confusing. In addition, it would be worth mentioning that it's not recommended to use postgresql_fdw_validator as validator of a third-party's FDW to avoid dependency. Regards, -- Shigeru HANADA -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
