(2014/02/04 20:56), Robert Haas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
Allowing ALTER COLUMN SET STORAGE on foreign tables would make sense if for
example, "SELECT * INTO local_table FROM foreign_table" did create a new
local table of columns having the storage types associated with those of a
foreign table?
Seems like a pretty weak argument. It's not that we can't find
strange corner cases where applying SET STORAGE to a foreign table
doesn't do something; it's that they *are* strange corner cases. The
options as we normally don't understand them just aren't sensible in
this context, and a good deal of work has been put into an alternative
options framework, which is what authors of FDWs ought to be using.
I just wanted to discuss the possiblity of allowing SET STORAGE on a
foreign table, but I've got the point. I'll resume the patch review.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
