From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [9.3] Automatically updatable views vs writable foreign tables |
Date: | 2013-05-16 21:41:51 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCWrK9Nn-bS75mzi8kzv7-WRGUMN-akW0q+kzk+2Yrn0og@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 May 2013 22:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This is assuming that an FDW that defines, say, ExecForeignDelete
> is thereby promising that *all* tables it supports are deletable. That
> is not required by the current FDW API spec.
>
Ah OK, I didn't appreciate that distinction.
> If we want to do something about this, I'd be a bit inclined to say that
> we should add a new FDW callback function to let the FDW say whether
> a particular rel is updatable or not.
>
> I think it would be a good idea to get that done for 9.3, since all this
> support is new in 9.3, and it's not too late to adjust the API now.
> If we wait, there will be compatibility headaches.
>
+1. That seems like something that should be part of the API, even if
we didn't have an immediate use for it.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Hammond | 2013-05-16 21:59:38 | PLJava for Postgres 9.2. |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-05-16 21:37:42 | Re: [9.3] Automatically updatable views vs writable foreign tables |