Message-ID: <52F19FF7.3010403@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:20:39 +0900
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables
References: 
 <CAEZqfEfVJNptoTSEY3QrQ90K9WD2nxfM+6fsk3YTc1ZXZ1Y5-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<12432.1384406906@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+Tgmob3ZNDi+P+v3ypHvFN1tD-Bpt8M+0dHFTnCqHxmcNw8aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<10163.1384786524@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAEZqfEc6MkEx+L=bQHVPEjr_+LgWSzy8uA11ci=X0A8VEPRmiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52DDD071.9090405@ak.jp.nec.com>
	<CAEZqfEe_enXpSFpS8S_q6a8gNHK8AKtD5vy=fYxTddRtR8uOmw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+TgmoZiskpRfmSZuY01Uh3qBqPRb3-UgXnS-euUO5cw9Yst3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<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>
	<52EF09D3.8060302@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmobKJDTV1yt92WCjGK4F3uf6VuSGY-OND6TU3iK9OVm5kg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmobKJDTV1yt92WCjGK4F3uf6VuSGY-OND6TU3iK9OVm5kg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

(2014/02/04 20:56), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Allowing ALTER COLUMN SET STORAGE on foreign tables would make sense if for
>> example, "SELECT * INTO local_table FROM foreign_table" did create a new
>> local table of columns having the storage types associated with those of a
>> foreign table?
>
> Seems like a pretty weak argument.  It's not that we can't find
> strange corner cases where applying SET STORAGE to a foreign table
> doesn't do something; it's that they *are* strange corner cases.  The
> options as we normally don't understand them just aren't sensible in
> this context, and a good deal of work has been put into an alternative
> options framework, which is what authors of FDWs ought to be using.

I just wanted to discuss the possiblity of allowing SET STORAGE on a 
foreign table, but I've got the point.  I'll resume the patch review.

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers