On 12/13/24 16:03, Önder Kalacı wrote:
> Hi Alvaro, all
>
>> IMO this is a bad plan. It'll become _the_ way to run MERGE on foreign
>> tables, which will become a selling point for proprietary FDWs, and
>> nobody will be motivated to write the code to implement the long-term
>> plan you were d
Hi Alvaro, all
> IMO this is a bad plan. It'll become _the_ way to run MERGE on foreign
> tables, which will become a selling point for proprietary FDWs, and
> nobody will be motivated to write the code to implement the long-term
> plan you were describing.
>
> In short, -1 from me.
>
I see your
On 2024-Dec-13, Önder Kalacı wrote:
> Matheus Alcantara wrote:
> > I didn't understand what is a "custom scan node" on the fdw context at
> > first place (I don't know if it is an already know word on this
> > context), but from what I've understood so far, to a fdw extension
> > support MERGE i
HI Matheus, all
>
> > +
> > +
> > + Postgres doesn't support MERGE on foreign tables,
> > + see ExecMerge. Still, extensions may provide
> > + custom scan nodes to support MERGE on foreign
> > + tables. If your extension provides such custom scan node, this
> > + function shoul
Hi,
Just some thoughts on documentation part.
+
+
+ Postgres doesn't support MERGE on foreign tables,
+ see ExecMerge. Still, extensions may provide
+ custom scan nodes to support MERGE on foreign
+ tables. If your extension provides such custom scan node, this
+ function sh
