On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: > > > On September 30, 2015 at 7:06:58 AM, Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > I wrote: > > Hm. Wouldn't it be just fine if only the server is able to define a > > list of extensions then? It seems to me that all the use-cases of this > > feature require to have a list of extensions defined per server, and > > not per fdw type. This would remove a level of complexity in your > > patch without impacting the feature usability as well. I would > > personally go without it but I am fine to let a committer (Tom?) put a > > final judgement stamp on this matter. Thoughts? > > 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. > > Fair enough. Declaring it for the whole database as an option to CREATE > FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER was just a convenience really, so you could basically > say “I expect this extension on all my servers”. But you’re right, logically > “having the extension” is an attribute of the servers, so restricting it to > the server definitions only has a nice simple logic to it.
OK. Once you can get a new patch done with a reworked extractExtensionList, I'll get a new look at it in a timely fashion and then let's move it to a committer's hands. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
