Fujii-san, > >> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based > >> on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still > >> passed to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can > >> continue the discussion and change the behavior later if necessary. > Pushed! Thank all involved in this development!! > For record, I attached the final patch I committed.
Thank you for revising the v16 patch to v18 and pushing it. Cool! 2021年4月8日(木) 22:14 Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>: > > > > On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote: > >> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based > >> on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still > >> passed to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can > >> continue the discussion and change the behavior later if necessary. > > Pushed! Thank all involved in this development!! > For record, I attached the final patch I committed. > > > > Ok, it's fair enought for me. > > > > I'll try to sort out my thought, then raise a follow-up discussion if > > necessary. > > Thanks! > > The followings are the open items and discussion points that I'm thinking of. > > 1. Currently the extra information (TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL, > TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY or TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING) about how a > foreign table was specified as the target to truncate in TRUNCATE command is > collected and passed to FDW. Does this really need to be passed to FDW? Seems > Stephen, Michael and I think that's necessary. But Kaigai-san does not. I > also think that TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING can be removed because there > seems no use case for that maybe. > > 2. Currently when the same foreign table is specified multiple times in the > command, the extra information only for the foreign table found first is > collected. For example, when "TRUNCATE ft, ONLY ft" is executed, > TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL is collected and _ONLY is ignored because "ft" is > found first. Is this OK? Or we should collect all, e.g., both _NORMAL and > _ONLY should be collected in that example? I think that the current approach > (i.e., collect the extra info about table found first if the same table is > specified multiple times) is good because even local tables are also treated > the same way. But Kaigai-san does not. > > 3. Currently postgres_fdw specifies ONLY clause in TRUNCATE command that it > constructs. That is, if the foreign table is specified with ONLY, > postgres_fdw also issues the TRUNCATE command for the corresponding remote > table with ONLY to the remote server. Then only root table is truncated in > remote server side, and the tables inheriting that are not truncated. Is this > behavior desirable? Seems Michael and I think this behavior is OK. But > Kaigai-san does not. > > 4. Tab-completion for TRUNCATE should be updated so that also foreign tables > are displayed. > > Regards, > > -- > Fujii Masao > Advanced Computing Technology Center > Research and Development Headquarters > NTT DATA CORPORATION
