From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inherit support for foreign tables |
Date: | 2014-11-07 12:01:38 |
Message-ID: | 545CB4A2.1030303@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2014/11/07 14:57), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>>> Here are separated patches.
>>>>
>>>> fdw-chk.patch - CHECK constraints on foreign tables
>>>> fdw-inh.patch - table inheritance with foreign tables
>>>>
>>>> The latter has been created on top of [1].
>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/540DA168.3040407@lab.ntt.co.jp
>>
>>> To be exact, it has been created on top of [1] and fdw-chk.patch.
>
> I tried both patches on the current head, the newly added
> parameter to analyze_rel() hampered them from applying but it is
> easy to fix seemingly and almost all the other part was applied
> cleanly.
Thanks for the review!
> By the way, are these the result of simply splitting of your last
> patch, foreign_inherit-v15.patch?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53FEEF94.6040101@lab.ntt.co.jp
The answer is "no".
> The result of apllying whole-in-one version and this splitted
> version seem to have many differences. Did you added even other
> changes? Or do I understand this patch wrongly?
As I said before, I splitted the whole-in-one version into three: 1)
CHECK constraint patch (ie fdw-chk.patch), 2) table inheritance patch
(ie fdw-inh.patch) and 3) path reparameterization patch (not posted).
In addition to that, I slightly modified #1 and #2.
IIUC, #3 would be useful not only for the inheritance cases but for
union all cases. So, I plan to propose it independently in the next CF.
>>> I noticed that the latter disallows TRUNCATE on inheritance trees that
>>> contain at least one child foreign table. But I think it would be
>>> better to allow it, with the semantics that we quietly ignore the
>>> child
>>> foreign tables and apply the operation to the child plain tables,
>>> which
>>> is the same semantics as ALTER COLUMN SET STORAGE on such inheritance
>>> trees. Comments welcome.
>>
>> Done. And I've also a bit revised regression tests for both
>> patches. Patches attached.
I rebased the patches to the latest head. Here are updated patches.
Other changes:
* fdw-chk-3.patch: the updated patch revises some ereport messages a
little bit.
* fdw-inh-3.patch: I noticed that there is a doc bug in the previous
patch. The updated patch fixes that, adds a bit more docs, and revises
regression tests in foreign_data.sql a bit further.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fdw-inh-3.patch | text/x-patch | 90.6 KB |
fdw-chk-3.patch | text/x-patch | 25.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Katharina Büchse | 2014-11-07 12:19:22 | Re: two dimensional statistics in Postgres |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2014-11-07 10:47:11 | Re: Tweaking Foreign Keys for larger tables |