| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml |
| Date: | 2015-10-02 20:57:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa-44L5_bXY0Wrt5R2Efbf6eZOnRAtYKDOBuTXn48rE3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> ISTM that the sentence "as remote constraints are not locally known" is
>> somewhat confusing, because check constrains on remote tables can be
>> defined locally in 9.5. How about "unique constraints or exclusion
>> constraints on remote tables are not locally known"? Attached is a
>> patch for that.
>
> Makes sense to me.
Me, too. Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-10-02 21:04:59 | Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-02 20:52:40 | Re: Request for dogfood volunteers (was No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So!) |