Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:05:08 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>,
 Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables
Message-ID: <20140131180508.GM2921@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <52E5F3FD.6050000@lab.ntt.co.jp> <52E6137B.1080704@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAEZqfEdojfdzt9pHwsdYURNL5+JNrDUF-iMtmyh-LdDeAWcncA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEZqfEfYauyxZQvsKODM5BQKt+KsnNakFQxrHHdnivq6mO83rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <32648.1391097891@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZwhrVF5t6d6anyd1UOh=B6MuPB+uruuXtVo0gHH9txPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20275.1391119500@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmoa9yGWfq7Yybf6KYjXRJFarUh7pxCq6K_k86d-Xmf3QtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140131152136.GJ2921@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <14378.1391182237@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="b1ERR0FXR0PvNIRE"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <14378.1391182237@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--b1ERR0FXR0PvNIRE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > I agree that using the FDW-specific options is the right approach and
> > disallowing those to be set on foreign tables makes sense.  I don't
> > particularly like the idea of applying changes during inheiritance
> > which we wouldn't allow the user to do directly.  While it might be a
> > no-op and no FDW might use it, it'd still be confusing.
>=20
> If we don't allow it directly, why not?  Seems rather arbitrary.

I'm apparently missing something here.  From my perspective, they're
either allowed or they're not and if they aren't allowed then they
shouldn't be allowed to happen.  I'd view this like a CHECK constraint-
if it's a foreign table then it can't have a value for SET STORAGE.  I
don't see why it would be 'ok' to allow it to be set if we're setting it
as part of inheiritance but otherwise not allow it to be set.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

--b1ERR0FXR0PvNIRE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=iPHE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--b1ERR0FXR0PvNIRE--