| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions |
| Date: | 2018-02-26 11:50:31 |
| Message-ID: | 5A93F487.4080602@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2018/02/23 16:38), Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> This would introduce an asymmetry (we can move tuples from plain partitions
>> to foreign partitions, but the reverse is not true), but I am thinking that
>> it would be probably okay to document about that.
> About just documenting the asymmetry you mentioned that's caused by
> the fact that we don't enforce constraints on foreign tables, I
> started wondering if we shouldn't change our stance on the matter wrt
> "partition" constraints?
I'm not sure that it's a good idea to make an exception in that case.
Another concern is triggers on the remote side; those might change the
row so that the partition constraint of the containing partition is no
longer satisfied.
> But, admittedly, that's a topic for a
> different thread.
OK, I'll leave that for another patch.
Will post a new version. Thanks for the comments!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2018-02-26 12:21:11 | Re: GSOC 2018 ideas |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-02-26 11:50:05 | Optimizing nested ConvertRowtypeExpr execution |