On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 03:58:04PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 09/30/2017 05:14 AM, Derry Hamilton wrote:
> > Just to say, yes, this would be handy. I've been using a variant of
> > that hack on reporting servers, while migrating systems from
> > proprietary databases. It behaves quite gracefully when there are
> > incompatible options, and it fixes up properly with DROPs as the first
> > options.
>
> I assume the proposal is to allow changing to a different server using
> the same FDW. I can see all sorts of odd things happening if we allow
> changing to a server of a different FDW.
Like what that could not happen without this feature anyways?
Suppose the foreign server becomes unreachable, changes its schema
completely, and becomes reachable again? How would that be different
from changing the server name to one with a totally different schema?
Naturally one should shoot one's feet off, but the proposed feature
wouldn't exactly be a footgun. To believe otherwise would be like
arguing that DROP TABLE (especially CASCASDE!) is a footgun, so better
not have it.
Nico
--
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
