Re: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA statement

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> Le dimanche 25 mai 2014 12:41:18 David Fetter a écrit :
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:08:06PM +0200, Ronan Dunklau wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Since my last proposal didn't get any strong rebuttal, please find
>> > attached a more complete version of the IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA statement.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Please to send future patches to this thread so people can track them
>> in their mail.
>
> I'll do.
>
> I didn't for the previous one because it was a few months ago, and no patch
> had been added to the commit fest.
>
>>
>> > I tried to follow the SQL-MED specification as closely as possible.
>> >
>> > This adds discoverability to foreign servers. The structure of the
>> > statement as I understand it is simple enough:
>> >
>> > IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA remote_schema FROM SERVER some_server [ (LIMIT TO |
>> > EXCEPT) table_list ] INTO local_schema.
>> >
>> > The import_foreign_schema patch adds the infrastructure, and a new FDW
>> > routine:
>> >
>> > typedef List *(*ImportForeignSchema_function) (ForeignServer *server,
>> > ImportForeignSchemaStmt * parsetree);
>> >
>> > This routine must return a list of CreateForeignTableStmt mirroring
>> > whatever tables were found on the remote side, which will then be
>> > executed.
>> >
>> > The import_foreign_schema_postgres_fdw patch proposes an implementation of
>> > this API for postgres_fdw. It will import a foreign schema using the right
>> > types as well as nullable information.
>>
>> In the case of PostgreSQL, "the right types" are obvious until there's
>> a user-defined one. What do you plan to do in that case ?
>>
>
> The current implementation fetches the types as regtype, and when receiving a
> custom type, two things can happen:
>
> - the type is defined locally: everything will work as expected
> - the type is not defined locally: the conversion function will fail, and
> raise an error of the form: ERROR: type "schema.typname" does not exist

Just wondering: what about the case where the same data type is
defined on both local and remote, but with *different* definitions? Is
it the responsibility of the fdw to check for type incompatibilities?
--
Michael