Re: Change format of FDW options used in \d* commands (was: Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5)

2011-08-12 Thread Robert Haas
2011/8/12 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: (2011/08/12 1:05), Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com  wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue ago 11 11:50:40 -0400 2011: 2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanadashigeru.han...@gmail.com:

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-11 Thread Robert Haas
2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: (2011/08/09 1:16), Robert Haas wrote: 2011/8/8 Shigeru Hanadashigeru.han...@gmail.com: Currently table-level options are showin in result of \det+ command (only verbose mode), in same style as fdw and foreign servers. But \d is more popular

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue ago 11 11:50:40 -0400 2011: 2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: (3) OPTIONS clause style Show FDW options as they were in OPTIONS clause.  Each option is shown as key 'value', and delimited with ','.     Ex)     FDW Options:

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue ago 11 11:50:40 -0400 2011: 2011/8/9 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: (3) OPTIONS clause style Show FDW options as they were in OPTIONS clause.  Each option

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-09 Thread Shigeru Hanada
(2011/08/09 1:16), Robert Haas wrote: 2011/8/8 Shigeru Hanadashigeru.han...@gmail.com: Currently table-level options are showin in result of \det+ command (only verbose mode), in same style as fdw and foreign servers. But \d is more popular for table describing, so moving table-level options

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-08 Thread Shigeru Hanada
Sorry, I've missed sending copy to list, so I quoted off-list discussion. On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:59 PM, Shigeru Hanadashigeru.han...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/8/6 Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com: Done. Thanks! Incidentally, I notice that if you do: \d some_foreign_table ...the table-level

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-08 Thread Shigeru Hanada
(2011/07/29 17:37), Shigeru Hanada wrote: I also attached a rebased version of force_not_null patch, which adds force_not_null option support to file_fdw. This is a use case of per-column FDW option. [just for redirection] Robert has committed only per_column_option patch. So I posted

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-08 Thread Robert Haas
2011/8/8 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: Currently table-level options are showin in result of \det+ command (only verbose mode), in same style as fdw and foreign servers. But \d is more popular for table describing, so moving table-level options from \det+ to \d might be better.  

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-08-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/7/29 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: Here is a rebased version of per-column FDW options patch.  I've proposed this patch in last CF, but it was marked as returned with feedback.  So I would like to

Re: [HACKERS] per-column FDW options, v5

2011-07-29 Thread Robert Haas
2011/7/29 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com: Here is a rebased version of per-column FDW options patch.  I've proposed this patch in last CF, but it was marked as returned with feedback.  So I would like to propose in next CF 2011-09.  I already moved CF item into new topic SQL/MED of CF