On 2016/03/14 11:51, Tom Lane wrote: > Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> On 2016/03/13 4:46, Andres Freund wrote: >>> ... The difference apears to be the >>> check that's now in build_simple_rel() - there was nothing hitting the >>> user mapping code before for file_fdw.
>> Exactly. >> I'm not sure it's worth complicating the code to keep that behavior, so >> I'd vote for adding the change notice to 9.6 release notes or something >> like that in addition to updating file-fdw.sgml. > Perhaps it would be useful for an FDW to be able to specify that user > mappings are meaningless to it? And then bypass this check for such FDWs? > > I'm not really sold on enforcing that people create meaningless user > mappings. For one thing, they're likely to be sloppy about it, which > could lead to latent security problems if the FDW later acquires a > concept that user mappings mean something. Seems reasonable. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
