Re: Extension support for postgres_fdw
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Extension support for postgres_fdw |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5587597F.8060501@BlueTreble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Extension support for postgres_fdw (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Extension support for postgres_fdw
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/20/15 12:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Note that no matter what the details are, something like this is putting > the onus on the DBA to mark as transmittable only functions that actually > are safe to transmit, ie they exist*and have identical semantics* on the > remote. I think that's fine as long as it's clearly documented. That seems like potentially a lot of extra work. We have the actual function body/definition for all but C functions, perhaps we could automatically map calls when the definitions are identical. I think that could operate safely in addition to manual specification though, so presumably this could be added later. > (Presumably, only immutable functions would get transmitted, even if there > are mutable functions present in a marked extension.) +1 -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: