Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah, I'm drifting towards the position that we should just define the > defaults as being whatever they are locally, rather than trying to be > cute about supporting remotely-executed defaults. It looks to me like > if we try to do the latter, we're going to have pitfalls and weird > corner cases that will never be quite transparent. There's also the > argument that this'd be a lot of work that benefits only some FDWs, > since the whole concept of remote column defaults doesn't apply when > the FDW's data source isn't a traditional RDBMS.
That was my first thought on the topic, to have a solution that is simple (if not perfect). Your argument that it would be unpleasant to lose the ability to use sequence-generated remote default values made me reconsider. But there is a workaround, namely to use a trigger before insert to generate an automatic primary key (e.g. if the inserted value is NULL). Maybe it would be good to add a few hints at workarounds like that to the documentation if it's going to be local defaults. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
