On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> Hm. Wonder if something like that shouldn't be backpatched - because >>> otherwise using postgres_fdw from an old server against a newer one will >>> do weird stuff. I don't know what kind of policy we've committed to >>> with postgresImportForeignSchema... > >> I don't think I'd like to promise that postgres_fdw will always be >> forward-compatible. Backward-compatibility is hard enough already.
Thanks for the commit. > Unless I'm missing something, the behavior will be that an older > version will simply ignore remote partitioned tables (they will not > pass the relkind filter in the query). Seems pretty fail-soft, > so I think it's fine. Yeah, I would suggest to revisit that if we get actual complaints, but I would not push much in favor of it. It's not an area where nothing can be done to improve the user experience. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers