2012/10/19 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Shigeru HANADA > <shigeru.han...@gmail.com> wrote: >> However, I'm not sure where that leaves us with respect to the original >> goal of getting rid of use of that function name. Thoughts? >> >> Sorry, I had misunderstood the problem :-(. In my proposal, postgresql_fdw >> uses public schema, as other contrib modules do, so its validator can live >> with existing pg_catalog.postgresql_fdw_validator. IMHO we should >> remove postgresql_fdw_validator sooner or later, but we don't need to hurry >> to remove existing postgresql_fdw_validator from core. >> >> Of course we must ensure that postgresql_fdw never uses in-core validator, >> and dblink and other product never use postgresql_fdw's validator. To >> achieve this, how about to use a schema, say postgresql_fdw, for >> postgresql_fdw by specifying "schema" option in extension control file? >> We need to qualify function names, so relocatable should be false. This >> requires users of postgresql_fdw to set search_path or qualify >> postgresql_fdw's functions and views every time, but it seems acceptable. >> >> In addition, this approach would prevent pollution of public schema. > > It seems to me that this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. The > original reason we ran into this issue is because there were some > people (I forget who, sorry) who insisted that this had to be renamed > from pgsql_fdw to postgresql_fdw. That change then caused this naming > conflict. Now, normally what we do if we have a naming conflict is we > rename one of the two things so that we don't have a naming conflict. > If we've determined that we can't rename postgresql_fdw_validator for > reasons of backward compatibility, then we should rename this new > thing instead. We of course do not have to use the original > pgsql_fdw_validator name; it can be postgres_fdw_validator or > postgree_fdw_validator or prostgreskewell_fdw_validator or whatever > the consensus bikeshed position is. > IIRC, the reason why postgresql_fdw instead of pgsql_fdw was no other fdw module has shorten naming such as ora_fdw for Oracle. However, I doubt whether it is enough strong reason to force to solve the technical difficulty; naming conflicts with existing user visible features. Isn't it worth to consider to back to the pgsql_fdw_validator naming again?
Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
