On 06-03-2015 AM 01:32, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com 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
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 for CREATE USER
On 06-03-2015 AM 09:30, Tom Lane wrote:
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp 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
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp 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,
Amit Langote langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp 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
Tom Lane-2 wrote
Amit Langote lt;
Langote_Amit_f8@.co
gt; 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
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com 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
