| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Kohei KaiGai" <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PgHacker" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Shigeru Hanada" <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables |
| Date: | 2012-09-13 14:32:54 |
| Message-ID: | 26384.1347546774@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Instead, the planner arranges for the TID to be carried up as an
>> explicit resjunk column named ctid. (Currently this is done in
>> rewriteTargetListUD(), but see also preptlist.c which does some
>> related things for SELECT FOR UPDATE.)
>>
>> I'm inclined to think that what we need here is for FDWs to be able to
>> modify the details of that behavior, at least to the extent of being
>> able to specify a different data type than TID for the row
>> identification column.
> Would that imply inventing a new system attribute for
> "foreign tid"?
No, I think you missed the point of what I wrote completely. The target
row ID is not treated as a system attribute during UPDATE/DELETE. It's
an ordinary data column that's silently added to what the user wrote.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2012-09-13 16:06:28 | Re: remove dead ports? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-13 14:25:21 | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |