On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:47 AM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > > On 8/31/23 12:52, Jeff Davis wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-08-31 at 10:59 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >> The server's FDW has to be postgres_fdw. So we have to handle the > >> awkward dependency between core and postgres_fdw (an extension). > > > > That sounds more than just "awkward". I can't think of any precedent > > for that and it seems to violate the idea of an "extension" entirely. > > > > Can you explain more concretely how we might resolve that? > > > Maybe move postgres_fdw to be a first class built in feature instead of > an extension?
Yes, that's one way. Thinking larger, how about we allow any FDW to be used here. We might as well, allow extensions to start logical receivers which accept changes from non-PostgreSQL databases. So we don't have to make an exception for postgres_fdw. But I think there's some value in bringing together these two subsystems which deal with foreign data logically (as in logical vs physical view of data). -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
