Re: postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables
Date: 2017-03-31 23:19:04
Message-ID: CAB7nPqS5aMcrDauWzSN3jmMx0HiSfSi49TxSX-PLuCLos6320g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>> Hm. Wonder if something like that shouldn't be backpatched - because
>>> otherwise using postgres_fdw from an old server against a newer one will
>>> do weird stuff. I don't know what kind of policy we've committed to
>>> with postgresImportForeignSchema...
>
>> I don't think I'd like to promise that postgres_fdw will always be
>> forward-compatible. Backward-compatibility is hard enough already.

Thanks for the commit.

> Unless I'm missing something, the behavior will be that an older
> version will simply ignore remote partitioned tables (they will not
> pass the relkind filter in the query). Seems pretty fail-soft,
> so I think it's fine.

Yeah, I would suggest to revisit that if we get actual complaints, but
I would not push much in favor of it. It's not an area where nothing
can be done to improve the user experience.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-31 23:20:46 Re: Somebody has not thought through subscription locking considerations
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-03-31 23:01:24 Re: Table collision in join.sql and aggregates.sql