Re: Proposal to CREATE FOREIGN TABLE LIKE

On Feb 8, 2025 at 12:55 +0800, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, wrote:
> > Fix CI failure of doc build in v1 patch.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch! I am +1 for this, but I have a few comments:
Hi, tanks for review.
> >
> > 1/ In the IDENTITY case, the remote side may not be
> > able to handle the DEFAULT value.
Yes, and done.
> > 2/ As IDENTITY, STORAGE is also allowed on foreign tables, which
> > does not make much sense either, as the fdw may not be Postgres,
> > or if it is Postgres, it may have a different STORAGE setting. This is
> > also not documented. I am inclined to say to not include it either.
Done.
> >
> > I think we should not allow IDENTITY and STORAGE in this patch
> > as they are not documented [1] as is, and perhaps a separate discussion
> > to correct the behavior for the CREATE FOREIGN TABLE case.
Yes, however, I found we have doc to tell users and they actually could ALTER FOREIGN TABLE to SET STORAGE...
There are several inconsistencies, I have a summary in Inconsistency between Compression and Storage for Foreign Tables[0]
We could discuss and fix them there.
> >
> > 3/ a minor nit on the comments.
> >
> > instead of
> >
> > + Foreign tables have no real storage in PostgreSQL.
> >
> > Can it just be
> >
> > Foreign tables have no storage in PostgreSQL.
> >
> > the "real" is not needed.
Done.

Patch V2 addressed the comments.

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6cecef0e-ee14-473c-bb0a-6aa61f539a66%40Spark

--
Zhang Mingli
HashData