From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: tighten generic_option_name, or store more carefully in catalog?
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:23:25 -0400
Message-ID: <702396.1748892205@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <683DF0E5.1040905@acm.org>
References: <6830EB30.8090904@acm.org>
<3020890.1748735715@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<683BA390.7000903@acm.org>
<3029560.1748740373@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<683BBE52.8050900@acm.org>
<557970.1748888023@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<683DF0E5.1040905@acm.org>
Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org> writes:
> On 06/02/25 14:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here's a proposed patch for the "=" issue. Whether or not we should
>> rethink FDW validation behavior, doing so surely couldn't be
>> back-patched. But I think this much should be.
> LGTM
Pushed, thanks for looking at it.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jcflack@acm.org
Subject: Re: tighten generic_option_name, or store more carefully in catalog?
In-Reply-To: <702396.1748892205@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox