Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYchFefbb2uSx_vL10xO_6j76R3GjcfBfYKJjigpxMYPA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:29 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > It seems to me that you would pass down just a string which gets > allocated for "options", and injection risks are something to be careful > about. Another possibility would be an array with comma-separated > arguments, say: > options = 'option1=foo,option2=bar' > There is already some work done with comma-separated arguments for the > parameter "extensions", now that's more work. I like the direction of your thinking, but it seems to me that this would cause a problem if you want to set search_path=foo,bar. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: