From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Missing importing option of postgres_fdw |
Date: | 2015-05-18 08:03:45 |
Message-ID: | 55599CE1.5070109@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015/05/16 3:32, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On second thought, I noticed that as for this option, we cannot live without
>> allowing IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA to return ALTER FOREIGN TABLE statements
>> because we cannot declare the convalidated information in the CREATE FOREIGN
>> TABLE statement. So, I think we shoould also allow it to return ALTER
>> FOREIGN TABLE statements. Am I right?
>
> Isn't convalidated utterly meaningless for constraints on foreign tables?
Let me explain. I think that convalidated would be *essential* for
accurately performing relation_excluded_by_constraints for foreign
tables like plain tables; if we didn't have that information, I think we
would fail to accurately detect whether foreign tables need not be scanned.
BTW, I don't know if it's a good idea to import connoinherit from the
remote and then reflect that information on the local.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-05-18 08:05:36 | Re: Minor improvement to create_foreign_table.sgml |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-05-18 07:39:43 | Re: KNN-GiST with recheck |