From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Ronan Dunklau <rdunklau(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Triggers on foreign tables |
Date: | 2013-10-16 12:37:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoazmaGXKxc0FVG6UTNhW1XnUL5-csUUAFANpRC04CVxmw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> One reason we should support local triggers is that not all the data
> source of FDW support remote trigger. It required FDW drivers to
> have RDBMS as its backend, but no realistic assumption.
> For example, file_fdw is unavailable to implement remote triggers.
True, but gosh, updates via file_fdw are gonna be so slow I can't
believe anybody'd use it for something real....
> One thing I'd like to know is, where is the goal of FDW feature.
> It seems to me, FDW goes into a feature to manage external data
> set as if regular tables. If it is right understanding, things we try to
> support on foreign table is things we're supporting on regular tables,
> such as triggers.
I generally agree with that.
> We often have some case that we cannot apply fully optimized path
> because of some reasons, like view has security-barrier, qualifier
> contained volatile functions, and so on...
> Trigger may be a factor to prevent fully optimized path, however,
> it depends on the situation which one shall be prioritized; performance
> or functionality.
Sure. I mean, I guess if there are enough people that want this, I
suppose I ought not stand in the way. It just seems like a lot of
work for a feature of very marginal utility.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-16 12:39:10 | Re: buildfarm failures on smew and anole |
Previous Message | Stéphan BEUZE | 2013-10-16 12:25:17 | ERROR : 'tuple concurrently updated' |