* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> I think this is totally misguided. Who's to say that some weird FDW > >>> might not pay attention to attstorage? I could imagine a file-based > >>> FDW using that to decide whether to compress columns, for instance. > >>> Admittedly, the chances of that aren't large, but it's pretty hard > >>> to argue that going out of our way to prevent it is a useful activity. > > > >> I think that's a pretty tenuous position. There are already > >> FDW-specific options sufficient to let a particular FDW store whatever > >> kinds of options it likes; letting the user set options that were only > >> ever intended to be applied to tables just because we can seems sort > >> of dubious. I'm tempted by the idea of continuing to disallow SET > >> STORAGE on an unvarnished foreign table, but allowing it on an > >> inheritance hierarchy that contains at least one real table, with the > >> semantics that we quietly ignore the foreign tables and apply the > >> operation to the plain tables. > > > > [ shrug... ] By far the easiest implementation of that is just to apply > > the catalog change to all of them. According to your assumptions, it'll > > be a no-op on the foreign tables anyway. > > Well, there's some point to that, too, I suppose. What do others think?
I agree that using the FDW-specific options is the right approach and
disallowing those to be set on foreign tables makes sense. I don't
particularly like the idea of applying changes during inheiritance
which we wouldn't allow the user to do directly. While it might be a
no-op and no FDW might use it, it'd still be confusing.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
