| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FDW system columns |
| Date: | 2012-02-28 14:35:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa_TsU0_aNP2NJ3JMVuMa6ay15gYF5bz+KrZDKkK45RjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Shigeru Hanada
<shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We have three options:
>
> a) remove all system columns (posted patch)
> b) remove system columns other than tableoid
> c) leave all system columns as is (current 9.2dev)
>
> Incidentally, views, which is very similar object type to foreign
> tables, have no system columns.
>
> Thoughts?
I vote against (c). I'm not sure which of (a) or (b) is better.
We've talked about allowing foreign tables to inherit from regular
tables and visca versa, and certainly, in that situation, tableoid
would be useful. But I don't think we've made a definitive decision
about that. I stripped that functionality out of the original patch
because it introduced a bunch of warts that we didn't have time to
figure out how to fix, and it's not clear to me that anyone's spent
any time thinking about that since then.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-02-28 14:37:44 | Re: FDW system columns |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-02-28 13:32:09 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |