| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Nicholson, Brad" <bnicholson(at)hp(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw foreign tables and serial columns |
| Date: | 2013-05-15 14:40:40 |
| Message-ID: | 51939E68.2020504@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/15/2013 10:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> You can certainly argue that it might be silly to have a local sequence
> generating the default value for insertions into a remote table; but
> on the other hand, it might not be silly, depending on usage scenario.
> I don't think the database should be enforcing a policy choice like
> that.
Presumably if it's not appropriate they won't define it as a serial
column. If Postgres is the primary source of the data rather than the
foreign handler then it makes plenty of sense to have a serial column, I
should think.
So +1 for allowing it.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-05-15 14:43:17 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.3 beta breaks some extensions "make install" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-15 14:27:34 | Re: postgres_fdw foreign tables and serial columns |