Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>
> wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that implements the extension support discussed at
>> PgCon this year during the FDW unconference sesssion.
...
> Thinking a bit wider, why is this just limited to extensions?
The basic issue here is "how can a user control which functions/operators
can be sent for remote execution?". While it's certainly true that
sometimes you might want function-by-function control of that, Paul's
point was that extension-level granularity would be extremely convenient
for PostGIS, and probably for other extensions. I don't see anything
wrong with that --- and I don't think that we should insist that Paul's
patch implement both cases. Somebody else who really needs
function-by-function control can do the dogwork of figuring out a
reasonable API for that.
Disclaimer 1: Paul and I discussed this back at PGCon, and I encouraged
him to send in his patch.
Disclaimer 2: I haven't read the patch and don't mean to vouch for any
implementation details. But the functional spec of "allow remote
execution of functions belonging to named extensions" seems sane to me.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
