Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables
Date: 2013-03-15 03:20:03
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZX0t7zhFe4V-3Q+W1U1yPj3e2RjaMhB9hbzq2R_OEKYw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> It feels a bit like unpredictable magic to have "DEFAULT" mean one
>> thing and omitted columns mean something else.
>
> Agreed. The current code behaves that way, but I think that's
> indisputably a bug not behavior we want to keep.

I'm not entirely convinced that's a bug. Both behaviors seem useful,
and there has to be some way to specify each one.

But I just work here.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2013-03-15 04:21:27 Re: Identity projection
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-03-15 03:07:33 Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)