Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e69e7e05-2f8f-e478-480c-5f39180d6e21@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module ("Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan GCS Delivery)" <noriyoshi.shinoda@hpe.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: [HACKERS] Proposal to add work_mem option to postgres_fdw module
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 28/08/2018 05:55, Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan GCS Delivery) wrote: >>> 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. >> ... OPTIONS ( host 'remhost1', port '5433', dbname 'demodb', option='option1=foo', option='option2=bar' ); > I do not want to allow postgres_fdw to set "all" GUCs. Because I think it is very difficult to check the validity of allinput values. > So, I attached modified the patch so that we can easily add GUC that we can set to postgres_fdw module. > If you wish to add more GUC options to the module, add values to the non_libpq_options[] array of the InitPgFdwOptionsfunction, > And add the validator code for the GUC in the postgres_fdw_validator function. We already have a method for libpq applications to pass GUC settings via connection parameters. And postgres_fdw supports passing libpq connection parameters as server options. So why doesn't this work here? The reason is that postgres_fdw filters out connection settings that are marked debug ("D"), and the "options" keyword is marked as such. I think this is wrong. Just remove that designation and then this will work. (Perhaps filtering out the debug options is also wrong, but I can see an argument for it.) -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: