| From: | Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: partitioned table + postgres_FDW not working in 9.3 |
| Date: | 2013-09-26 15:56:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAP=oouGBwmSD=EXWwR5tL48aZBCeCJVjO6m3dRK-zv+fU8P=YA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Thanks for your reply. This sounds like a relatively simple
>> workaround, so I'll give it a try. Is the search_path of the remote
>> session that postgres_fdw forces considered to be intentional,
>> expected behavior, or is it a bug?
>
> It's intentional.
>
> Possibly more to the point, don't you think your trigger function is
> rather fragile if it assumes the caller has provided a particular
> search path setting?
To be honest, I don't have much experience with functions, and was
using the trigger function from the official documentation:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/ddl-partitioning.html
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lonni J Friedman | 2013-09-26 16:04:40 | pg_basebackup: ERROR: could not find any WAL files (9.3) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-09-26 15:52:05 | Re: partitioned table + postgres_FDW not working in 9.3 |