Re: Update comments in nodeModifyTable.c

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Update comments in nodeModifyTable.c
Date: 2017-08-01 19:07:38
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaNWw623S5QB4RSLwhd8ByPLw4jhtpJjadkmKP+X6wtxQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure that's a good idea because the
> change says like we might have 'wholerow' only for the FDW case, but that
> isn't correct because we would have 'wholerow' for a view as well. ISTM that
> views should be one of the typical cases, so I'd like to propose to modify
> the sentence starting with 'Typically' to something like this: "Typically,
> this will be a 'ctid' or 'wholerow' attribute, but in the case of a foreign
> data wrapper it might be a set of junk attributes sufficient to identify the
> remote row." What do you think about that?

Works for me.

--
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 Ildus K 2017-08-01 19:10:22 Re: Remove 1MB size limit in tsvector
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-08-01 19:02:34 Re: Partitioning vs ON CONFLICT