Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQv2M+5dUUojZk_kfs-vF1RzQoMNoURAf1As1+kkqru2A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: Add support for INSERT OVERRIDING clause  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?
-- 
Michael


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)?