2013/1/18 Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 11/16/2012 08:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:33:21PM +0900, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
no
On 11/16/2012 08:08 AM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:33:21PM +0900, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:33:21PM +0900, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for
Oracle.
However, I doubt whether
Sorry for long absence.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for
Oracle.
However, I doubt whether it is enough strong reason to force to
Sorry for long absence.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was
no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for
Oracle.
However, I doubt whether it is enough strong reason to force to
2012/10/19 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Shigeru HANADA
shigeru.han...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I'm not sure where that leaves us with respect to the original
goal of getting rid of use of that function name. Thoughts?
Sorry, I had misunderstood the
Sorry for delayed response.
On 2012/10/11, at 5:28, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
So I think we can't remove that functionality just yet. What we could
do is adjust postgresql_fdw_validator to throw a WARNING that it's
deprecated. This wouldn't prevent it from being used during
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Shigeru HANADA
shigeru.han...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I'm not sure where that leaves us with respect to the original
goal of getting rid of use of that function name. Thoughts?
Sorry, I had misunderstood the problem :-(. In my proposal, postgresql_fdw
uses
Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
(2012/10/09 0:30), Kohei KaiGai wrote:
If it is also OK for you, I'd like to take over this patch to comitter.
This patch is prerequisite of postgresql_fdw, so I hope this patch
getting merged soon.
Please go ahead. :-)
While reviewing this
Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
[ dblink_fdw_validator.v3.patch ]
I've committed the dblink portion of this with some mostly-cosmetic
adjustments. We still need a plan for getting to a point where it's
safe to remove postgresql_fdw_validator.
regards,
Hanada-san,
It is fair enough for me.
So, I'd like to hand over this patch for committers.
Thanks,
2012/10/9 Shigeru HANADA shigeru.han...@gmail.com:
(2012/10/09 0:30), Kohei KaiGai wrote:
The attached patch is a revised one according to my previous
suggestion. It re-defines
Hanada-san,
The attached patch is a revised one according to my previous
suggestion. It re-defines PQconninfoOption *options as static
variable with NULL initial value, then, PQconndefaults() shall
be invoked at once. The default options never changed during
duration of the backend process, so
Hanada-san,
I checked your patch. It can be applied to the latest master branch
without any conflicts, and regression tests were fine.
Unlike the original postgresql_fdw_validator(), the new
dblink_fdw_validator() has wise idea; that pulls list of connection
options from libpq, instead of
Hanada-san,
What about your plan to upstream contrib/pgsql_fdw module on the upcoming
commit-fest?
Even though I understand the point I noticed (miss-synchronization of sub-
transaction block between local and remote side) is never easy problem to
solve, it is worth to get the patch on the table
Kaigai-san,
(2012/09/13 16:56), Kohei KaiGai wrote:
What about your plan to upstream contrib/pgsql_fdw module on the upcoming
commit-fest?
I will post pgsql_fdw patch (though it will be renamed to
postgresql_fdw) in opening CF (2012 Sep), as soon as I resolve a bug in
ANALYZE support, maybe on
15 matches
Mail list logo
