On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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?".
Yep. > 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. Well, you could for example pass a JSON string (that's fashionable these days) that sets up a list of authorized objects per category instead, like: authorized_objects = {functions:["foo_oid","foo2_oid"], operators:["ope1_oid","ope2_oid"]} > 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. Well, I am just questioning the extensibility of the proposed interface, not saying that this is a bad thing :) -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers