On tis, 2012-03-06 at 13:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > A bigger issue with postgresql_fdw_validator is that it supposes that > the core backend is authoritative as to what options libpq supports, > which is bad design on its face. It would be much more sensible for > dblink to be asking libpq what options libpq supports, say via > PQconndefaults().
The validator for the proposed FDW suffers from the same problem. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
