Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Amit Langote <
> Langote_Amit_f8@.co
> > writes:
>> By the way, in this case, is "foo" the name/id of a local user or does it
>> really refer to some "foo on the remote server"?
>
> It's the name of a local user. I see your point that somebody might
> misread this as suggesti
Amit Langote writes:
> By the way, in this case, is "foo" the name/id of a local user or does it
> really refer to some "foo on the remote server"?
It's the name of a local user. I see your point that somebody might
misread this as suggesting that it's a remote username, but not sure
that there'
On 06-03-2015 AM 09:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
>
>> One more option may be "for server" (reading the doc for CREATE USER MAPPING)
>
> Hm, but then you'd have "user mapping for foo for server bar", which
> doesn't read so nicely either.
>
Yeah, I had totally missed the "for foo"
Amit Langote writes:
> On 06-03-2015 AM 01:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for the concept, but to be nitpicky, "in" doesn't seem like the right
>> word here. "on server" would read better to me; or perhaps "at server".
> One more option may be "for server" (reading the doc for CREATE USER MAPPING)
H
On 06-03-2015 AM 09:18, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 06-03-2015 AM 01:32, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for the concept, but to be nitpicky, "in" doesn't seem like the right
>> word here. "on server" would read better to me; or perhaps "at server".
>>
>
> One more option may be "for server" (reading the doc
On 06-03-2015 AM 01:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> appendStringInfo(&buffer, _("user mapping for %s in server %s"),
>> usename,
>> srv->servername);
>
> +1 for the concept, but to be nitpicky, "in" doesn't seem like the right
> word here. "on
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> When commit cae565e503 introduced FDW user mappings, it used this in
> getObjectDescription for them:
> appendStringInfo(&buffer, _("user mapping for %s"), usename);
> This was later mostly copied (by yours truly) as object identity by
> commit f8348ea32e wherein I
