On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 9/23/16 9:28 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> Document to what extent other relation types are supported (e.g.,
>>> > materialized views as source, view or foreign table or temp table as
>>> > target). Suggest an updatable view as target if user wants to have
>>> > different table names or write into a different table structure.
>>> >
>> I don't think that's good suggestion, for one it won't work for UPDATEs
>> as we have completely different path for finding the tuple to update
>> which only works on real data, not on view. I am thinking of even just
>> allowing table to table replication in v1 tbh, but yes it should be
>> documented what target relation types can be.
>
> I'll generalize this then to: Determine which relation types should be
> supported at either end, document that, and then make sure it works that
> way. A restrictive implementation is OK for the first version, as long
> as it keeps options open.
The newest patch is 3-week old, so marking this entry as returned with feedback.
--
Michael
