Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uMAl6-004St7-Ta for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 19:23:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uMAl5-00CgTf-5O for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 19:23:43 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uMAl4-00CgTR-S7 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 19:23:42 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uMAl1-0005Qa-2A for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 19:23:42 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 552JNPws702397; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 15:23:25 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Chapman Flack cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: tighten generic_option_name, or store more carefully in catalog? 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> Comments: In-reply-to Chapman Flack message dated "Mon, 02 Jun 2025 14:43:49 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <702395.1748892205.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 15:23:25 -0400 Message-ID: <702396.1748892205@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Chapman Flack 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