Message-ID: <61186acf6c85de175e97aa0e91b5db1f34cd3465.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: [17] CREATE SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:55:52 -0700
In-Reply-To: <05ae37abb207cd6bf6b126780024692d91402b0b.camel@j-davis.com>
References: <149ff9264db27cdf724b65709fbbaee4bf316835.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CAExHW5vv-78ixJs3arsuZ+12A4AyqehJnDPhejp0m4FAKG6JZA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <830a2bc6cbbb2e6e01c6c0d9f31f320822e10603.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CAExHW5sAo4Gv3AwuxQNGSQ2Z45B8_MZEb-SG-B8D-hLMdrquAg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e531ec798298a21d671babd45849092850b8675e.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <ac4042d6-204c-9661-9949-79ab8a1f8604@joeconway.com>
	 <CAExHW5unvpDv6yMSmqurHP7Du1PqoJFWVxeK-4YNm5EnoNJiSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <433d0845248e86c0317d9d396926182cfe157340.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <CAExHW5sQVJeCgCGMkum_k4Z4VPaK5GkdAjHW-d+F3MngBZ9qBA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <05ae37abb207cd6bf6b126780024692d91402b0b.camel@j-davis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.4-0ubuntu2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/61186acf6c85de175e97aa0e91b5db1f34cd3465.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2023-09-05 at 12:08 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> OK, so we could have a built-in FDW called pg_connection that would
> do
> the right kinds of validation; and then also allow other FDWs but the
> subscription would have to do its own validation.

While working on this, I found a minor bug and there's another
discussion happening here:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e5892973ae2a80a1a3e0266806640dae3c428=
100.camel%40j-davis.com

It looks like that's going in the direction of checking for the
presence of a password in the connection string at connection time.

Ashutosh, that's compatible with your suggestion that CREATE
SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER works for any FDW that supplies the right
information, because we need to validate it at connection time anyway.
I'll wait to see how that discussion gets resolved, and then I'll post
the next version.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis