| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables |
| Date: | 2012-08-25 16:20:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYStMSvn1HWL85ZKvFbObDLBLktuU4EekWu_vUqzM5uXw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> It is a responsibility of FDW extension (and DBA) to ensure each
> foreign-row has a unique identifier that has 48-bits width integer
> data type in maximum.
It strikes me as incredibly short-sighted to decide that the row
identifier has to have the same format as what our existing heap AM
happens to have. I think we need to allow the row identifier to be of
any data type, and even compound. For example, the foreign side might
have no equivalent of CTID, and thus use primary key. And the primary
key might consist of an integer and a string, or some such.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-25 16:26:30 | Re: TRUE/FALSE vs true/false |
| Previous Message | Shaun Thomas | 2012-08-25 14:39:11 | Re: Loose Index Scans by Planner? |