From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Writable foreign tables: how to identify rows |
Date: | 2013-03-13 13:46:56 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wjR7Nepdm8WVMLfNLPf3d1Z5SACqEbHcsCqP82vx2Jpw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm not sure whether postgres_fdw should support, but updatable views
>> have no system column including ctid. So, we need magic identifier,
>> perhaps it would be set of primary key value(s), to support updating
>> remote updatable views via foreign tables.
>
> Yeah, I considered that. I thought seriously about proposing that we
> forget magic row identifiers altogether, and instead make postgres_fdw
> require a remote primary key for a foreign table to be updatable.
IMO, Utilizing anything but this for remote record identification is
an implementation specific optimization. Aren't the semantics
different though? If you go:
update foo set id = 1 where id = 1;
the primary key would not change, but the ctid would. or is that
already a handled?
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-13 14:22:52 | Re: Writable foreign tables: how to identify rows |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-03-13 13:22:48 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |