On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-04-05 11:46:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> ISTM this is because the proposed feature is wrongheaded. The basic >> concept of CREATE TABLE LIKE is that you're copying properties from >> another object of the same type. You might or might not want every >> property, but there's no question of whether you *could* copy every >> property. In contrast, what this is proposing to do is copy properties >> from (what might be) a plain table to a foreign table, and those things >> aren't even remotely the same kind of object. >> >> It would make sense to me to restrict LIKE to copy from another foreign >> table, and then there would be a different set of INCLUDING/EXCLUDING >> options that would be relevant (options yes, indexes no, for example). > > I actually think it's quite useful to create a foreign table that's the > same shape as a local table. And the patches approach of refusing to > copy thinks that aren't supported sounds sane to me. This could be improved as well: it would be useful to be able to copy the column options of another foreign table.
> Consider e.g. moving off older partitioned data off to an archiving > server. New local partitions are often created using CREATE TABLE LIKE, > but that's not possible for the foreign ones. Definitely a use case. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
