Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, I considered that. I thought seriously about proposing that we
>> forget magic row identifiers altogether, and instead make postgres_fdw
>> require a remote primary key for a foreign table to be updatable.
> IMO, Utilizing anything but this for remote record identification is
> an implementation specific optimization. Aren't the semantics
> different though? If you go:
> update foo set id = 1 where id = 1;
> the primary key would not change, but the ctid would. or is that
> already a handled?
In postgres_fdw as it currently stands, the remote ctid would change.
I'm not sure we should posit that as a universal property of FDWs
though. It's not even a meaningful question for FDWs with no underlying
rowid concept.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
