(2014/02/04 20:56), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Allowing ALTER COLUMN SET STORAGE on foreign tables would make sense if for
>> example, "SELECT * INTO local_table FROM foreign_table" did create a new
>> local table of columns having the storage types associated with those of a
>> foreign table?
>
> Seems like a pretty weak argument. It's not that we can't find
> strange corner cases where applying SET STORAGE to a foreign table
> doesn't do something; it's that they *are* strange corner cases. The
> options as we normally don't understand them just aren't sensible in
> this context, and a good deal of work has been put into an alternative
> options framework, which is what authors of FDWs ought to be using.
I just wanted to discuss the possiblity of allowing SET STORAGE on a
foreign table, but I've got the point. I'll resume the patch review.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
