On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> One thing that's bugging me a bit about this whole line of attack is
>> that, in the first instance, the whole goal here is to support
>> inheritance hierarchies that mix ordinary tables with foreign tables.
>> If you have a table with children some of which are inherited and
>> others of which are not inherited, you're very likely going to want
>> your constraints enforced for real on the children that are tables and
>> assumed true on the children that are foreign tables, and none of what
>> we're talking about here gets us to that, because we normally want the
>> constraints to be identical throughout the inheritance hierarchy.
> There's a nearby thread that's addressing this same question, in which
> I make the case (again) that the right thing for postgres_fdw constraints
> is that they're just assumed true.  So I'm not sure why this conversation
> is proposing to implement a lot of mechanism to do something different
> from that.

/me scratches head.

Because the other guy named Tom Lane took the opposite position on the
second message on this thread, dated 11/14/13?

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to