On 13 June 2013 01:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> The more I read the spec, the less sense it seems to make, and each
>> time I read it, I seem to reach a different conclusion.
>
>> On my latest reading, I've almost convinced myself that "updatable" is
>> meant to imply support for
Dean Rasheed writes:
> The more I read the spec, the less sense it seems to make, and each
> time I read it, I seem to reach a different conclusion.
> On my latest reading, I've almost convinced myself that "updatable" is
> meant to imply support for all 3 operations (INSERT, UPDATE and
> DELETE)
On 12 June 2013 18:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> looking at this patch some more ...
>
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> One place where I think we have diverged from the spec, however, is in
>> information_schema.columns.updatable. This should be returning 'YES'
>> if the individual column is updatable, and I s
looking at this patch some more ...
Dean Rasheed writes:
> One place where I think we have diverged from the spec, however, is in
> information_schema.columns.updatable. This should be returning 'YES'
> if the individual column is updatable, and I see no reason for that
> the require the relation
On 16 May 2013 22:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Specifically, for foreign tables
>> information_schema.tables.is_insertable_into and
>> information_schema.columns.is_updatable always say 'NO' even if the
>> foreign table is writable. Fixing that would require new C functions
>> along the same lines as pg
On 16 May 2013 22:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is assuming that an FDW that defines, say, ExecForeignDelete
> is thereby promising that *all* tables it supports are deletable. That
> is not required by the current FDW API spec.
>
Ah OK, I didn't appreciate that distinction.
> If we want to do som
On 05/16/2013 05:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dean Rasheed writes:
I've just started 9.3 beta testing and I noticed that a "simple" view
defined on top of a writable foreign table is not automatically
updatable.
Given that these are both new-to-9.3 features, I think it would be a
shame if they don't
Dean Rasheed writes:
> I've just started 9.3 beta testing and I noticed that a "simple" view
> defined on top of a writable foreign table is not automatically
> updatable.
> Given that these are both new-to-9.3 features, I think it would be a
> shame if they don't work together. It's basically a
Hi,
I've just started 9.3 beta testing and I noticed that a "simple" view
defined on top of a writable foreign table is not automatically
updatable.
Given that these are both new-to-9.3 features, I think it would be a
shame if they don't work together. It's basically a 1-line patch to
make such v
