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 <
>> >
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
> >>
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
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
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'
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
>>
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
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.
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
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
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