On 11 June 2013 01:03, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for my late reply.
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I called it updatable rather than "writable" or "read-only" because it
>> might perhaps be extended in the future with separate options for
>> "insertable" and "deletable". It could also be extended to give
>> column-level control over updatability, or something like
>> "use_remote_updatability" could be added, but that all feels like 9.4
>> material.
>
>
> Yes this is definitely material for 9.4. You should add this patch to the
> 1st commit fest. I'll add myself as a reviewer.
> Thanks,
>
Thanks. Arguably though, the API changes are something that should be
sorted out in 9.3, but I'm not sure how much of an appetite there is
for that, or whether it's too late.
pg_view_is_updatable() and pg_view_is_insertable() are both new to
9.3. They were designed purely to support the information schema
views, but are inadequate for most other practical purposes. Once 9.3
is out, we'll be stuck with them - although of course that doesn't
stop us adding more functions, I think it would be better to replace
them now.
Likewise the writable FDW API is new to 9.3, so I think 9.3 should at
least decide on the API for a FDW to specify whether a foreign table
is updatable.
Regards,
Dean
