(2018/07/09 9:00), Jeff Davis wrote:
Committed.
I made some small modifications and added a test for the case where the
foreign table is a partition of a local table, which follows a
different code path after commit 3d956d95.
Great! Thanks for revising and committing, Jeff. Thanks for review
On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 20:09 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that
> comment
> in combination with changes to the FDW docs in the patch would help
> FDW
> authors understand why that is needed. Please find attached an
> updated
> version of
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Stephen Frost 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
Greetings,
* Ashutosh Bapat (ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
> > (2018/03/09 20:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> >> (2018/03/08 14:24), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >>> For local constraints to be enforced, we use remote
> >>> constraints. F
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2018/03/09 20:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>
>> (2018/03/08 14:24), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>>
>>> For local constraints to be enforced, we use remote
>>> constraints. For local WCO we need to use remote WCO. That means we
>>> create many forei
(2018/03/09 20:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/03/08 14:24), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
For local constraints to be enforced, we use remote
constraints. For local WCO we need to use remote WCO. That means we
create many foreign tables pointing to same local table on the foreign
server through many vi
Hi Ashutosh,
(2018/03/08 14:24), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Etsuro said [2] that WCO constraints can not be implemented on foreign
server and normal check constraints can be, and for that he provides
an example in [3]. But I think that example is going the wrong
direction.
More precisely, what I'm
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings Robert, Ashutosh, Arthur, Etsuro, all,
>
> * Arthur Zakirov (a.zaki...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:09:50PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> > Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that comm
Greetings Robert, Ashutosh, Arthur, Etsuro, all,
* Arthur Zakirov (a.zaki...@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:09:50PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that comment in
> > combination with changes to the FDW docs in the pa
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:09:50PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that comment in
> combination with changes to the FDW docs in the patch would help FDW authors
> understand why that is needed. Please find attached an updated version of
> t
(2018/03/06 1:57), Arthur Zakirov wrote:
IMHO, it is worth to add more explaining comment into
deparseReturningList, why it is necessary to merge WCO attributes to
RETURNING clause. You already noted it in the thread. I think it could
confuse someone who not very familiar how RETURNING is related
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 09:44:37PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I rebased the patch over HEAD. Please find attached an updated patch.
Thank you!
IMHO, it is worth to add more explaining comment into
deparseReturningList, why it is necessary to merge WCO attributes to
RETURNING clause. You alrea
Hi Arthur,
(2018/03/03 18:51), Arthur Zakirov wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 05:22:42PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
I rebased the patch over HEAD and revised comments/docs a little bit. Please
find attached a new version of the patch.
I've reviewed the patch.
The code is good, clear and it i
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 05:22:42PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I rebased the patch over HEAD and revised comments/docs a little bit. Please
> find attached a new version of the patch.
I've reviewed the patch.
The code is good, clear and it is pretty small. There are documentation
fixes
(2018/01/18 16:16), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Attached is a rebased patch.
I rebased the patch over HEAD and revised comments/docs a little bit.
Please find attached a new version of the patch.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
*** a/contrib/postgres_fdw/deparse.c
--- b/contrib/postgres_fdw/deparse.c
*
(2018/01/17 22:00), Stephen Frost wrote:
Reviewing this thread, I tend to agree with Etsuro and I'm not sure I
see where there's a good argument for having a foreign table under a
view behave differently than a local table under a view for WCO (which
is an option of the view- not about the table
Greetings Etsuro, Robert, all,
* Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote:
> (2017/11/01 11:16), Robert Haas wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> >>The view with WCO is local but the modification which violates WCO is
> >>being made on remote server by a
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> For local constraints on foreign tables, it's the user's responsibility to
> ensure that those constraints matches the remote side, so we don't need to
> ensure those constraints locally. But I'm not sure if the same thing
> applies to WCOs
18 matches
Mail list logo
