From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: inherit support for foreign tables |
Date: | 2014-01-21 20:00:59 |
Message-ID: | 1061.1390334459@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One thing that's bugging me a bit about this whole line of attack is
> that, in the first instance, the whole goal here is to support
> inheritance hierarchies that mix ordinary tables with foreign tables.
> If you have a table with children some of which are inherited and
> others of which are not inherited, you're very likely going to want
> your constraints enforced for real on the children that are tables and
> assumed true on the children that are foreign tables, and none of what
> we're talking about here gets us to that, because we normally want the
> constraints to be identical throughout the inheritance hierarchy.
There's a nearby thread that's addressing this same question, in which
I make the case (again) that the right thing for postgres_fdw constraints
is that they're just assumed true. So I'm not sure why this conversation
is proposing to implement a lot of mechanism to do something different
from that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Миша Тюрин | 2014-01-21 20:01:01 | Re[2]: [HACKERS] Re: [Lsf-pc] Linux kernel impact on PostgreSQL performance (summary v2 2014-1-17) |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-01-21 19:58:21 | Re: Dynamic Shared Memory stuff |