On 2017/08/01 6:41, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Amit Langote <
> Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
>>> I'm curious what the other limitations are...
>>
>> When I first wrote that documentation line (I am assuming you're asking
>> about "although these have some limitations that normal tables do not"), I
>> was thinking about the fact that the core system does not enforce
>> (locally) any constraints defined on foreign tables. Since we allow
>> inserting data into partitions directly, it is imperative that we enforce
>> the "partition constraint" along with the traditional constraints such as
>> NOT NULL and CHECK constraints, which we can do for local table partitions
>> but not for foreign table ones.
>>
>> Anyway, attached patch documents all these limitations about foreign table
>> partitions more prominently.
>>
>
> The revised patch down-thread looks good. Thanks.
>
> I indeed was referring to the paragraph you quoted.
>
> I would probably just s/For example/In particular/ and call it good -
> or maybe also tell the user that all the limitations are listed in the
> notes section for create foreign table (though my first thoughts are all
> quite wordy).
Thanks for the review.
On a second thought though, I think we should list the foreign table
partitions' limitations in only one place, that is, the CREATE FOREIGN
TABLE reference page. Listing them under 5.10.2.3. seems a bit off to me,
because other limitations listed there are those of the new partitioned
table objects, such as lack of global index constraints, etc. Lack of
tuple-routing to foreign partitions does not seem to me of the similar
nature. Also, the same text is no longer repeated in 3 different places.
Thoughts on the updated patch?
Thanks,
Amit
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
