On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> One thing that's bugging me a bit about this whole line of attack is >> that, in the first instance, the whole goal here is to support >> inheritance hierarchies that mix ordinary tables with foreign tables. >> If you have a table with children some of which are inherited and >> others of which are not inherited, you're very likely going to want >> your constraints enforced for real on the children that are tables and >> assumed true on the children that are foreign tables, and none of what >> we're talking about here gets us to that, because we normally want the >> constraints to be identical throughout the inheritance hierarchy. > > There's a nearby thread that's addressing this same question, in which > I make the case (again) that the right thing for postgres_fdw constraints > is that they're just assumed true. So I'm not sure why this conversation > is proposing to implement a lot of mechanism to do something different > from that.
/me scratches head. Because the other guy named Tom Lane took the opposite position on the second message on this thread, dated 11/14/13? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
