From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw |
Date: | 2018-03-16 11:01:45 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRfxn1U9EGHNThz8qgVQXKFZoWcqaCdesU2PNuOcHKtBag@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> It would really help to have some examples of exactly what is being
> proposed here wrt solutions.
>
> WCO is defined at a view level, so I'm not following the notion that
> we're going to depend on something remote to enforce the WCO when the
> remote object is just a regular table that you can't define a WCO on top
> of. That's not the case when we're talking about foreign tables vs.
> local tables, so it's not the same. I certainly don't think we should
> require a remote view to exist to perform the WCO check. If the remote
> WCO is a view itself then I would expect it to operate in the same
> manner as WCO on local views does- you can have them defined as being
> cascaded or not.
>
> In other words, there is no case where we have a "foreign view." Views
> are always local. A "foreign table" could actually be a view, in which
> case everything we treat it as a table in the local database, but WCO
> doesn't come up in that case at all- there's no way to define WCO on a
> table, foreign or not. If WCO is defined on the view on the remote
> server, then it should operate properly and not require anything from the
> local side.
I agree with this analysis. I have no objection about the patch anymore.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-03-16 11:08:41 | Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2018-03-16 10:43:56 | Re: ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE for partitioned tables |