On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Currently, the extensions patch considers that foreign data wrappers, > foreign servers, and user mapping objects can all be parts of extensions. > This is slightly problematic for pg_dump, where somebody decided to take > a shortcut and not implement user mappings using the full DumpableObject > infrastructure. That could be fixed, but I'm wondering whether it's > worth the trouble. I can see the point of writing an FDW as an > extension but it's a lot harder to see why either foreign server or user > mapping objects would ever be part of an extension. So it might just be > best to remove those two object types from the set that can be managed > by an extension. > > Comments?
I agree it's probably not that useful to make a foreign server or foreign user mapping part of an extension, but I'd rather not have us fail to support it just because we can't think of a use case right now. So my vote would be to fix it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
