Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Fujii-san,

> >> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That
is,extra list for ONLY is still passed to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can continue the
discussionand change the behavior later if necessary. 
> Pushed! Thank all involved in this development!!
> For record, I attached the final patch I committed.

Thank you for revising the v16 patch to v18 and pushing it.
Cool!

2021年4月8日(木) 22:14 Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>:
>
>
>
> On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> >> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That
is,extra list for ONLY is still passed to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can continue the
discussionand change the behavior later if necessary. 
>
> Pushed! Thank all involved in this development!!
> For record, I attached the final patch I committed.
>
>
> > Ok, it's fair enought for me.
> >
> > I'll try to sort out my thought, then raise a follow-up discussion if necessary.
>
> Thanks!
>
> The followings are the open items and discussion points that I'm thinking of.
>
> 1. Currently the extra information (TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL, TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY or
TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING)about how a foreign table was specified as the target to truncate in TRUNCATE command is
collectedand passed to FDW. Does this really need to be passed to FDW? Seems Stephen, Michael and I think that's
necessary.But Kaigai-san does not. I also think that TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING can be removed because there seems
nouse case for that maybe. 
>
> 2. Currently when the same foreign table is specified multiple times in the command, the extra information only for
theforeign table found first is collected. For example, when "TRUNCATE ft, ONLY ft" is executed,
TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMALis collected and _ONLY is ignored because "ft" is found first. Is this OK? Or we should
collectall, e.g., both _NORMAL and _ONLY should be collected in that example? I think that the current approach (i.e.,
collectthe extra info about table found first if the same table is specified multiple times) is good because even local
tablesare also treated the same way. But Kaigai-san does not. 
>
> 3. Currently postgres_fdw specifies ONLY clause in TRUNCATE command that it constructs. That is, if the foreign table
isspecified with ONLY, postgres_fdw also issues the TRUNCATE command for the corresponding remote table with ONLY to
theremote server. Then only root table is truncated in remote server side, and the tables inheriting that are not
truncated.Is this behavior desirable? Seems Michael and I think this behavior is OK. But Kaigai-san does not. 
>
> 4. Tab-completion for TRUNCATE should be updated so that also foreign tables are displayed.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> Advanced Computing Technology Center
> Research and Development Headquarters
> NTT DATA CORPORATION