On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:06 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > On 2021/04/22 9:39, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > One comment on truncate_foreign_table_docs_v1.patch: > > 1) I think it is "to be truncated" > > + <literal>rels</literal> is a list of <structname>Relation</structname> > > + data structures for each foreign table to truncated. > > Fixed. Thanks! > > > How about a slightly changed phrasing like below? > > + <literal>rels</literal> is a list of <structname>Relation</structname> > > + data structures of foreign tables to truncate. > Either works at least for me. If you think that this phrasing is > more precise or better, I'm ok with that and will update the patch again.
IMO, "rels is a list of Relation data structures of foreign tables to truncate." looks better. > >>> 3) How about adding an extra para(after below para in > >>> postgres_fdw.sgml) on WHY we don't push "ONLY" to foreign tables while > >>> truncating? We could add to the same para for other options if at all > >>> we don't choose to push them. > >>> <command>DELETE</command>, or <command>TRUNCATE</command>. > >>> (Of course, the remote user you have specified in your user mapping > >>> must > >>> have privileges to do these things.) > >> > >> I agree to document the behavior that ONLY option is always ignored > >> for foreign tables. But I'm not sure if we can document WHY. > >> Because I could not find the past discussion about why ONLY option is > >> ignored on SELECT, etc... Maybe it's enough to document the behavior? > > > > +1 to specify in the documentation about ONLY option is always > > ignored. > > Added. > > > But can we specify the WHY part within deparseTruncateSql, it > > will be there for developer reference? I feel it's better if this > > change goes with truncate_foreign_table_dont_pass_only_clause_v2.patch > > I added this information into fdwhandler.sgml because the developers > usually read fdwhandler.sgml. Thanks! + <para> + Note that information about <literal>ONLY</literal> options specified + in the original <command>TRUNCATE</command> command is not passed to I think it is not "information about", no? We just don't pass ONLY option instead we skip it. IMO, we can say "Note that the ONLY option specified with a foreign table in the original TRUNCATE command is skipped and not passed to ExecForeignTruncate." + <function>ExecForeignTruncate</function>. This is the same behavior as + for the callback functions for <command>SELECT</command>, + <command>UPDATE</command> and <command>DELETE</command> on + a foreign table. How about "This behaviour is similar to the callback functions of SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE on a foreign table"? > >>> 4) Isn't it better to mention the "ONLY" option is not pushed to remote > >>> -- truncate with ONLY clause > >>> TRUNCATE ONLY tru_ftable_parent; > >>> > >>> TRUNCATE ONLY tru_ftable; -- truncate both parent and child > >>> SELECT count(*) FROM tru_ftable; -- 0 > > I added the comment. LGTM. With Regards, Bharath Rupireddy. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
