On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> On 2015-07-16 PM 12:43, Tom Lane wrote: >>> 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. > >> Perhaps just paranoid but is the extension version number any significant? > > In any scenario for user control of sending functions to the far end, it's > on the user's head to make sure that he's telling us the truth about which > functions are compatible between local and remote servers. That would > extend to checking cross-version compatibility if he's running different > versions, too. We already have risks of that kind with built-in > functions, really, and I've not heard complaints about it. >
Yeah, that's true. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
