Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
От | Fabrízio de Royes Mello |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFcNs+q-CrcSQPbNPi-SW1ZZLsgeAkkiD264PJ8zSGRzrPanyA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Maybe we can use multiple "options". Something like:
... OPTIONS ( host 'remhost1', port '5433', dbname 'demodb', option='option1=foo', option='option2=bar' );
Regards,
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: