Re: postgres_fdw: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA ... LIMIT TO (partition)

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA ... LIMIT TO (partition)
Date: 2021-03-24 16:32:26
Message-ID: e8825ca0cfce497e8debe7de802d0713d93c7c79.camel@oopsware.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Am Mittwoch, dem 24.03.2021 um 13:23 +0100 schrieb Matthias van de
Meent:
> Yes, but it should be noted that the main reason that was mentioned
> as
> a reason to exclude partitions is to not cause table catalog bloat,
> and I argue that this argument is not as solid in the case of the
> explicitly named tables of the LIMIT TO clause. Except if SQL
> standard
> prescribes otherwise, I think allowing partitions in LIMIT TO clauses
> is an improvement overall.

Don't get me wrong, i find this useful, too. Especially because it's a
very minor change in the code. And i don't see negative aspects here
currently, either (which doesn't mean there aren't some).

>
> I myself have had this need, in that I've had to import some
> partitions manually as a result of this limitation. IMPORT FORAIGN
> SCHEMA really is great when it works, but limitations like these are
> crippling for some more specific use cases (e.g. allowing
> long-duration read-only access to one partition in the partition tree
> while also allowing the partition layout of the parents to be
> modified).

Interesting use case.

--
Thanks,
Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2021-03-24 16:38:32 Re: PoC/WIP: Extended statistics on expressions
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2021-03-24 16:28:05 Re: PoC/WIP: Extended statistics on expressions