Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>>> It feels a bit like unpredictable magic to have "DEFAULT" mean one
>>> thing and omitted columns mean something else.

>> Agreed. The current code behaves that way, but I think that's
>> indisputably a bug not behavior we want to keep.

> I'm not entirely convinced that's a bug. Both behaviors seem useful,
> and there has to be some way to specify each one.

I would love it if we had a way to provide remote-default
functionality. But per SQL spec these should produce the same results:
INSERT INTO t(f1, f2) VALUES(1, DEFAULT);
INSERT INTO t(f1) VALUES(1);
If PG fails to work like that, it's not a feature, it's a bug.
Where the default is coming from is not a justification for failing
the POLA like that.

regards, tom lane