On 11/29/17 19:59, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> IIRC, this issue was debated at great length back when we first put >>> in foreign tables, because early drafts of postgres_fdw did what you >>> propose here, and we ran into very nasty problems. We eventually decided >>> that allowing remotely-determined column defaults was a can of worms we >>> didn't want to open. I do not think that GENERATED columns really change >>> anything about that. They certainly don't do anything to resolve the >>> problems we were contending with back then. (Which I don't recall the >>> details of; you'll need to trawl the archives. Should be somewhere early >>> in 2013, though, since we implemented that change in commit 50c19fc76.) >> >> So this gives a good reason to do nothing or return an error at >> postgres_fdw level for OVERRIDING? > > Moving the patch to next CF as the discussion has not settled yet.
I think I'll close this patch. I was operating under the assumption that there is a bug of omission in PG10 here. But it seems this combination of features just isn't meant to work together at this time. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services