On 16 May 2013 22:16, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This is assuming that an FDW that defines, say, ExecForeignDelete > is thereby promising that *all* tables it supports are deletable. That > is not required by the current FDW API spec. >
Ah OK, I didn't appreciate that distinction. > If we want to do something about this, I'd be a bit inclined to say that > we should add a new FDW callback function to let the FDW say whether > a particular rel is updatable or not. > > I think it would be a good idea to get that done for 9.3, since all this > support is new in 9.3, and it's not too late to adjust the API now. > If we wait, there will be compatibility headaches. > +1. That seems like something that should be part of the API, even if we didn't have an immediate use for it. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers