Greetings Etsuro, Robert, all, * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > (2017/11/01 11:16), Robert Haas wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > ><ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >>The view with WCO is local but the modification which violates WCO is > >>being made on remote server by a trigger on remote table. Trying to > >>control that doesn't seem to be a good idea, just like we can't > >>control what rows get inserted on the foreign server when they violate > >>local constraints. > > > >I think that's a fair point. > > For local constraints on foreign tables, it's the user's responsibility to > ensure that those constraints matches the remote side, so we don't need to > ensure those constraints locally. But I'm not sure if the same thing > applies to WCOs on views defined on foreign tables, because in some case > it's not possible to impose constraints on the remote side that match those > WCOs, as I explained before.
Reviewing this thread, I tend to agree with Etsuro and I'm not sure I see where there's a good argument for having a foreign table under a view behave differently than a local table under a view for WCO (which is an option of the view- not about the table underneath it or if it's local or remote). I've not done a detailed review of the patch but it seems pretty reasonable and pretty small. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
