On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2015/04/28 15:17, Amit Langote wrote: > > Yeah, I think we should now allow the recursion for inheritance parents that > are foreign tables as well. Attached is a patch for that. >
Thanks! >> An example, >> postgres=# alter foreign table fparent alter a type char; >> ALTER FOREIGN TABLE >> >> postgres=# select * from fparent; >> ERROR: attribute "a" of relation "fchild1" does not match parent's type >> >> Above error, AIUI, is hit much before it is determined that fparent is a >> foreign table, whereas the following is FDW-specific (waiting to happen) >> error, >> >> postgres=# alter foreign table fparent add b char; >> ALTER FOREIGN TABLE >> >> postgres=# SELECT * FROM fparent; >> ERROR: column "b" does not exist >> CONTEXT: Remote SQL command: SELECT a, b FROM public.parent >> >> Not sure if the first case could be considered s a bug as foreign tables >> are >> pretty lax in these regards anyway. > > > I think the first case would be a bug caused by ATSimpleRecursion() that > doesn't allow the recursion. But I don't think the second case is a bug. > As described in the notes in the reference page on ALTER FOREIGN TABLE, I > think it should be the user's responsibility to ensure that the foreign > table definition matches the reality. > Yeah, I was guessing the first one would be a bug but wasn't quite sure and the second one is a well-documented behavior for foreign tables. I just felt that cases covered under ATSimpleRecursion() may also under fall under that category (being documented); but I guess not. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
