Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> writes:
> Hm. Wouldn't it be just fine if only the server is able to define aÂ
> list of extensions then? It seems to me that all the use-cases of thisÂ
> feature require to have a list of extensions defined per server, andÂ
> not per fdw type. This would remove a level of complexity in yourÂ
> patch without impacting the feature usability as well. I wouldÂ
> personally go without it but I am fine to let a committer (Tom?) put aÂ
> final judgement stamp on this matter. Thoughts?Â
Maybe I'm missing something, but I had envisioned the set of
safe-to-transmit extensions as typically being defined at the
foreign-server level. The reason being that you are really declaring two
things: one is that the extension's operations are reproducible remotely,
and the other is that the extension is in fact installed on this
particular remote server. Perhaps there are use-cases for specifying it
as an FDW option or per-table option, but per-server option seems by
far the most plausible case.
Also, isn't this whole thing specific to postgres_fdw anyway? I don't
follow your reference to fdw type.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
