Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W5hVX-0005Kn-3E for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 20:01:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W5hVW-0001VJ-IP for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 20:01:10 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W5hVU-0001TD-7w for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 20:01:08 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W5hVR-0006Du-Q9 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 20:01:07 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0LK0x3F001062; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:00:59 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Shigeru Hanada , KaiGai Kohei , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables In-reply-to: References: <12432.1384406906@sss.pgh.pa.us> <10163.1384786524@sss.pgh.pa.us> <52DDD071.9090405@ak.jp.nec.com> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:09:39 -0500" Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:00:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1061.1390334459@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > One thing that's bugging me a bit about this whole line of attack is > that, in the first instance, the whole goal here is to support > inheritance hierarchies that mix ordinary tables with foreign tables. > If you have a table with children some of which are inherited and > others of which are not inherited, you're very likely going to want > your constraints enforced for real on the children that are tables and > assumed true on the children that are foreign tables, and none of what > we're talking about here gets us to that, because we normally want the > constraints to be identical throughout the inheritance hierarchy. There's a nearby thread that's addressing this same question, in which I make the case (again) that the right thing for postgres_fdw constraints is that they're just assumed true. So I'm not sure why this conversation is proposing to implement a lot of mechanism to do something different from that. 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