Re: [HACKERS] Extension support for postgres_fdw

2015-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > On 6/20/15 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Note that no matter what the details are, something like this is putting >> the onus on the DBA to mark as transmittable only functions that actually >> are safe to transmit, ie they exist*and have identical semantics* on the >> remote.

Re: [HACKERS] Extension support for postgres_fdw

2015-06-21 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/20/15 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Note that no matter what the details are, something like this is putting the onus on the DBA to mark as transmittable only functions that actually are safe to transmit, ie they exist*and have identical semantics* on the remote. I think that's fine as long as

Re: [HACKERS] Extension support for postgres_fdw

2015-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
Simon Riggs writes: > On 20 June 2015 at 18:19, Tom Lane wrote: >> The key question here is whether filtering functions/operators at the >> level of extensions is a good design. It seems to me like a reasonable >> compromise between flexibility and ease of use, but others might see it >> differe

Re: [HACKERS] Extension support for postgres_fdw

2015-06-20 Thread Simon Riggs
On 20 June 2015 at 18:19, Tom Lane wrote: > The key question here is whether filtering functions/operators at the > level of extensions is a good design. It seems to me like a reasonable > compromise between flexibility and ease of use, but others might see it > differently. I like that, but

Re: [HACKERS] Extension support for postgres_fdw

2015-06-20 Thread Tom Lane
Paul Ramsey writes: > ... I think the postgres_fdw extension should pass user-defined > functions and operators, but only when it knows those functions and > operators exist at the remote. One way would be to ask the remote what > extensions it has, but the overhead of doing that is a bit high. A

Re: [HACKERS] Extension support for postgres_fdw

2015-06-20 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 06/20/2015 10:20 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote: I would like to enhance the postgres_fdw to allow more complete support for user-defined types. Right now, postgres_fdw already does a good job of passing user-defined type data back and forth, which is pretty nice. However, it will not pass functions

[HACKERS] Extension support for postgres_fdw

2015-06-20 Thread Paul Ramsey
I would like to enhance the postgres_fdw to allow more complete support for user-defined types.  Right now, postgres_fdw already does a good job of passing user-defined type data back and forth, which is pretty nice. However, it will not pass functions or operators that use user-defined types t