Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I hadn't been paying any attention to this thread, but I wonder whether
>> this entire approach isn't considerably inferior to what we can do now
>> with the planner pathification patch. To quote from the new docs:
> Well, I guess I'm not quite seeing it. What do you have in mind?
> Just taking a guess here, you might be thinking that instead of
> something like this...
> Update on public.ft2
> -> Foreign Update on public.ft2
> We could boil it all the way down to this:
> Foreign Update on public.ft2
Exactly. I'm not claiming that that would be particularly faster, but
it would eliminate a whole bunch of seriously ugly stuff that's in
this patch.
> But can you, really? What if the UPDATE is targeting an inheritance
> hierarchy containing some local tables and some remote tables?
I don't really see why that couldn't be made to work. You'd end up
with ForeignUpdates on the remote tables and a ModifyTable handling
the rest.
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
