Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZX0t7zhFe4V-3Q+W1U1yPj3e2RjaMhB9hbzq2R_OEKYw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
>> It feels a bit like unpredictable magic to have "DEFAULT" mean one
>> thing and omitted columns mean something else.
>
> Agreed.  The current code behaves that way, but I think that's
> indisputably a bug not behavior we want to keep.

I'm not entirely convinced that's a bug.  Both behaviors seem useful,
and there has to be some way to specify each one.

But I just work here.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Identity projection