On 11/29/17 19:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> IIRC, this issue was debated at great length back when we first put
>>> in foreign tables, because early drafts of postgres_fdw did what you
>>> propose here, and we ran into very nasty problems. We eventually decided
>>> that allowing remotely-determined column defaults was a can of worms we
>>> didn't want to open. I do not think that GENERATED columns really change
>>> anything about that. They certainly don't do anything to resolve the
>>> problems we were contending with back then. (Which I don't recall the
>>> details of; you'll need to trawl the archives. Should be somewhere early
>>> in 2013, though, since we implemented that change in commit 50c19fc76.)
>>
>> So this gives a good reason to do nothing or return an error at
>> postgres_fdw level for OVERRIDING?
>
> Moving the patch to next CF as the discussion has not settled yet.
I think I'll close this patch. I was operating under the assumption
that there is a bug of omission in PG10 here. But it seems this
combination of features just isn't meant to work together at this time.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
