From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
        PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw IMPORT SCHEMA and partitioned tables
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmobjK4F7Nd5cM=6ygCnC0g8Do=RP7pTWsUJZYe5SxbzXhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170309141531.GD9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <CAB7nPqSjyMBDDk+RHRoPVZ7yWZTvq73_Bg0HTG9hR0T=O1f5mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <eeebe90d-523f-9b0b-be46-8b5f34ea5412@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmobwR1WjV19Wv1GtZoBSXVHX9HpwSfSdjZtnPNhH0SgxMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqTDpzym=vJz-LooFHfdO-5fudb=b5XacEXHWVCZeULMjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB7nPqSh=8dd=gDrcS_ASecG_et8t2VmgSuPyHf57e2=mpWi+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2cab6db2-cf10-b8f2-58ed-7d4a052dac34@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAB7nPqSj1xWbkOYt+Cob3S_xYYxam1rN0_bvRVnb0HHMV5iZeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <15303833-838d-079c-2fa2-c01e93771387@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoZd9WQG63oCWHX07kWtqQtsmihR+MiWyYuioNiH2v3-Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170331193135.wwg5pqsrc634p3dg@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmobjK4F7Nd5cM=6ygCnC0g8Do=RP7pTWsUJZYe5SxbzXhA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:32:33 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15972.1490990130.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:55:30 -0400
Message-ID: <15973.1490990130@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Hm. Wonder if something like that shouldn't be backpatched - because
>> otherwise using postgres_fdw from an old server against a newer one will
>> do weird stuff.  I don't know what kind of policy we've committed to
>> with postgresImportForeignSchema...

> I don't think I'd like to promise that postgres_fdw will always be
> forward-compatible.  Backward-compatibility is hard enough already.

Unless I'm missing something, the behavior will be that an older
version will simply ignore remote partitioned tables (they will not
pass the relkind filter in the query).  Seems pretty fail-soft,
so I think it's fine.

			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