On 16 May 2013 22:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> This is assuming that an FDW that defines, say, ExecForeignDelete
> is thereby promising that *all* tables it supports are deletable. That
> is not required by the current FDW API spec.
>
Ah OK, I didn't appreciate that distinction.
> If we want to do something about this, I'd be a bit inclined to say that
> we should add a new FDW callback function to let the FDW say whether
> a particular rel is updatable or not.
>
> I think it would be a good idea to get that done for 9.3, since all this
> support is new in 9.3, and it's not too late to adjust the API now.
> If we wait, there will be compatibility headaches.
>
+1. That seems like something that should be part of the API, even if
we didn't have an immediate use for it.
Regards,
Dean
