On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
>> > ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> >> In 9.5, postgres_fdw allowed to prepare statements involving
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
> > ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> In 9.5, postgres_fdw allowed to prepare statements involving foreign
> >> tables without an associated user mapping as lo
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Now what's going on here? It seems to me that either postgres_fdw
>> requires a user mapping (in which case this ought to fail) or it
>> doesn't (in which case this ought to push the join down). I don't
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Ashutosh Bapat <
> ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> In 9.5, postgres_fdw allowed to prepare statements involving foreign
>> tables without an associated user mapping as long as planning did not
>> require the user mapping. Remember,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> > Here's patch which fixes the issue using Robert's idea.
>
> Please at least check your patches with 'git diff --check'
Thanks.
> before
> submitting them. And where it's not to
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> Here's patch which fixes the issue using Robert's idea.
Please at least check your patches with 'git diff --check' before
submitting them. And where it's not too much trouble, pgindent them.
Or at least make them look something like what p
Here's patch which fixes the issue using Robert's idea.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I'm not really sold on enforcing that people cre
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm not really sold on enforcing that people create meaningless user
>>> mappings. For one thing, they're likely to be sloppy about it, which
>>> could lead to latent
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not really sold on enforcing that people create meaningless user
>> mappings. For one thing, they're likely to be sloppy about it, which
>> could lead to latent security problems if the FDW later acquires a
>> concept
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita writes:
>> On 2016/03/13 4:46, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> ... The difference apears to be the
>>> check that's now in build_simple_rel() - there was nothing hitting the
>>> user mapping code before for file_fdw.
>
>> Exactly.
>
>> I'
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita writes:
> > On 2016/03/13 4:46, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> ... The difference apears to be the
> >> check that's now in build_simple_rel() - there was nothing hitting the
> >> user mapping code before for file_fdw.
>
> > Exactly.
>
On 2016/03/14 11:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita writes:
>> On 2016/03/13 4:46, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> ... The difference apears to be the
>>> check that's now in build_simple_rel() - there was nothing hitting the
>>> user mapping code before for file_fdw.
>> Exactly.
>> I'm not sure it's
Etsuro Fujita writes:
> On 2016/03/13 4:46, Andres Freund wrote:
>> ... The difference apears to be the
>> check that's now in build_simple_rel() - there was nothing hitting the
>> user mapping code before for file_fdw.
> Exactly.
> I'm not sure it's worth complicating the code to keep that beha
Hi,
On 2016/03/13 4:46, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2016-03-12 11:56:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2016-01-28 19:09:01 +, Robert Haas wrote:
Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs match.
Previously, the foreign j
Hi,
On 2016-03-12 11:56:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2016-01-28 19:09:01 +, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs match.
> >>
> >> Previously, the foreign join pushdown infrastructur
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-01-28 19:09:01 +, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs match.
>>
>> Previously, the foreign join pushdown infrastructure left the question
>> of security entirely up to individual FDW
Hi,
On 2016-01-28 19:09:01 +, Robert Haas wrote:
> Only try to push down foreign joins if the user mapping OIDs match.
>
> Previously, the foreign join pushdown infrastructure left the question
> of security entirely up to individual FDWs, but it would be easy for
> a foreign data wrapper to
17 matches
Mail list logo
