Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 07:30:42 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc@gmail.com>,
	Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [(known) BUG] DELETE/UPDATE more than one row in partitioned
 foreign table
Message-ID: <ainlkoxb4m84ZJRD@paquier.xyz>
References: <20250718175314.4513c00a@karst>
 <CAPmGK15CQK-oYFMAyq+rR0rQapUHtvAGuGgY5ahERHzZ4tmC8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20250729174852.14f23557@karst>
 <CAPmGK16v_We-k30qQaP+AARTr3n_dRg6yFuHP39sjV5uE_ne0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN-LCVMz58ukZ7ubGXiLuTeFE7wWmSwDw4URpF0q1ejzRvqbzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN-LCVM2iOWkfFt22yVEGOrp-76YP3-BVKQg+A20TENkVh8o1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN-LCVPgq0zfOU+BLrHnr2Sex_zndNjzWoAiONWD=R4ULQ2BAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK166P+ngd2ehady=_f-L4MePgBdBNxN5gi5_gSAfmV82QA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK17FtFGMkeCkRyCH8hQ05fNxoWZmUL-W9EAt1_qy05QOpw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zBD2tkNq6JLyKBcz"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPmGK17FtFGMkeCkRyCH8hQ05fNxoWZmUL-W9EAt1_qy05QOpw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ainlkoxb4m84ZJRD%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--zBD2tkNq6JLyKBcz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 08:30:46PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> To address this, I think it would be good if we could 1) extend the
> concept of inheritance to cover remote inheritances, like pt, and 2)
> extend inherited UPDATE/DELETE so that we update/delete leaf tables,
> like pt_p2, somehow directly, as done for local inheritances.  I'm not
> sure about how to do that, though.

FWIW, I think that there is a good argument for keeping it down to
simpler, and just not care about the option chain in such cases,
leaving it up to users to address that with two imports anyway?  Just=20
having the option at one level would solve most historical problems I
could see on this thread.  Good is sometimes a better option than
theoretically perfect.  And good here means a simpler implementation
overall, at least it seems to me so..
--
Michael

--zBD2tkNq6JLyKBcz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=p2F+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--zBD2tkNq6JLyKBcz--