On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > It would really help to have some examples of exactly what is being > proposed here wrt solutions. > > WCO is defined at a view level, so I'm not following the notion that > we're going to depend on something remote to enforce the WCO when the > remote object is just a regular table that you can't define a WCO on top > of. That's not the case when we're talking about foreign tables vs. > local tables, so it's not the same. I certainly don't think we should > require a remote view to exist to perform the WCO check. If the remote > WCO is a view itself then I would expect it to operate in the same > manner as WCO on local views does- you can have them defined as being > cascaded or not. > > In other words, there is no case where we have a "foreign view." Views > are always local. A "foreign table" could actually be a view, in which > case everything we treat it as a table in the local database, but WCO > doesn't come up in that case at all- there's no way to define WCO on a > table, foreign or not. If WCO is defined on the view on the remote > server, then it should operate properly and not require anything from the > local side.
I agree with this analysis. I have no objection about the patch anymore. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
